den Besten F D A, Castelein S, Schuringa E, de Jong S
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2023;65(4):248-252.
Shared decision making (SDM) can result in better treatment outcomes. Little is known about the practice of SDM in forensic psychiatry; a context in which not only psychiatric problems are present, but also freedom restrictions and involuntary hospitalisation.
To explore the current degree of SDM in a forensic psychiatric setting and to identify factors that influence SDM.
Semi-structured interviews (n = 4 triads: treatment coordinator, sociotherapeutic mentor and patient) combined with scores on questionnaires (SDM-Q-Doc and SDM-Q-9).
The SDM-Q showed a relatively high degree of SDM. Themes like cognitive and executive functions of the patient, subcultural differences, insight into the disease and reciprocal cooperation appeared to influence the SDM. In addition, SDM in forensic psychiatry appeared to be more of a means of improving communication about the decisions of the treatment team than truly ‘shared’ decision making.
This first exploration shows that SDM is applied in forensic psychiatry, however operationalised differently than the theory behind SDM prescribes.
共同决策(SDM)可带来更好的治疗效果。对于法医精神病学领域的共同决策实践知之甚少;在这种情况下,不仅存在精神问题,还存在自由限制和非自愿住院治疗。
探讨法医精神病学环境中当前的共同决策程度,并确定影响共同决策的因素。
采用半结构化访谈(n = 4个三元组:治疗协调员、社会治疗导师和患者),并结合问卷评分(SDM-Q-Doc和SDM-Q-9)。
SDM-Q显示出相对较高程度的共同决策。患者的认知和执行功能、亚文化差异、对疾病的洞察以及相互合作等主题似乎会影响共同决策。此外,法医精神病学中的共同决策似乎更多是一种改善治疗团队决策沟通的手段,而非真正的“共同”决策。
这首次探索表明,共同决策在法医精神病学中得到应用,然而其实施方式与共同决策背后的理论规定有所不同。