Fitzgerald Ita, Howe Jo, Maidment Ian, Wallace Emma, Zisman-Ilani Yaara, Højlund Mikkel, O'Dwyer Sarah, Ní Dhubhlaing Ciara, Crowley Erin K, Sahm Laura J
Pharmacy Department, St Patrick's Mental Health Services, Dublin 8, D08K7YW, Ireland.
Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork T12 YN60, Ireland.
Schizophr Bull. 2025 Jul 7;51(4):932-948. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaf059.
Shared decision-making (SDM) implementation remains limited in psychosis management, particularly within antipsychotic prescribing. When and why prescribers engage in SDM within these contexts is largely unknown. Part 2 of this 2-part realist review aimed to understand what SDM intervention strategies and local implementation contexts are responsible for successful prescriber engagement and why.
CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for evidence to develop realist program theories explaining relationships between meso- and micro-level contexts and impact on prescriber behaviors.
From 106 included documents, 5 program theories were developed explaining mechanisms responsible for increasing prescriber engagement with desired behaviors, alongside facilitative features within service delivery contexts and workforce development. Key mechanisms included reducing prescriber fear of sole responsibility for harm, reducing the perceived burden of SDM, increasing prescriber confidence in their ability to productively negotiate treatment consultations and their confidence to safely increase patient autonomy within decision-making. These mechanisms should be the focus of those interested in designing SDM interventions to increase prescriber engagement and those responsible for translating results of effective interventions into real-world settings to ensure facilitative contexts are maintained.
Intervention strategies that should be prioritized for scale-up include attempting SDM within existing therapeutic relationships, adopting a multidisciplinary team (MDT) responsibility for SDM implementation, and workforce training in skillsets required of effective SDM application. Efforts to standardize psychosis care via MDTs and systematically reduce discontinuity and fragmentation of care are required at policy-level.
在精神病管理中,共享决策(SDM)的实施仍然有限,尤其是在抗精神病药物处方方面。在这些情况下,处方者何时以及为何参与共享决策在很大程度上尚不清楚。这个两部分的现实主义综述的第二部分旨在了解哪些共享决策干预策略和当地实施背景促成了处方者的成功参与以及原因。
检索了CINAHL Plus、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、PsycINFO、PubMed、Scopus、社会学文摘、科学网和谷歌学术,以寻找证据来构建现实主义项目理论,解释中观和微观层面背景之间的关系以及对处方者行为的影响。
从106份纳入文献中,开发了5个项目理论,解释了促使处方者参与期望行为的机制,以及服务提供背景和劳动力发展中的促进因素。关键机制包括减少处方者对伤害的 sole责任的恐惧,减轻共享决策的感知负担,增强处方者对有效协商治疗咨询能力的信心,以及增强他们在决策中安全增加患者自主权的信心。这些机制应成为那些有兴趣设计共享决策干预措施以增加处方者参与度的人以及那些负责将有效干预措施的结果转化为实际应用以确保维持促进性背景的人的关注重点。
应优先扩大规模的干预策略包括在现有的治疗关系中尝试共享决策,采用多学科团队(MDT)对共享决策实施负责,以及对有效应用共享决策所需的技能进行劳动力培训。在政策层面,需要努力通过多学科团队使精神病护理标准化,并系统地减少护理的不连续性和碎片化。