Cathy J Francis, Michael Hazelton, Rhonda L Wilson
{"title":"Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.","authors":"Cathy J Francis, Michael Hazelton, Rhonda L Wilson","doi":"10.1111/hex.70134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most people with mental ill health want to be involved in decision-making about their care, many mental health professionals now recognise the importance of this (at least in-principle) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities enshrines the ethical imperative to support people in making their own treatment decisions. Nonetheless, there are widespread reports of people with mental ill health being excluded from decision-making about their treatment in practice.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning. We sought to consolidate and understand the evidence on the outcomes of shared and supported decision-making for people with mental ill health.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was evidence relating to the effects of these interventions on a range of outcomes for people with mental ill health, including on: suicidal crisis, symptoms, recovery, hospital admissions, treatment engagement and on the use of coercion by health professionals. There is favourable evidence for these types of interventions in improving some outcomes for people with mental ill health, more so than treatment-as-usual. For other outcomes, the evidence is preliminary but promising. Some areas for caution are also identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The review indicates that when the involvement of people with mental ill health in treatment planning is supported, there can be improved outcomes for their health and care. Areas for future research are highlighted.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on the benefits of implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":"e70134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Most people with mental ill health want to be involved in decision-making about their care, many mental health professionals now recognise the importance of this (at least in-principle) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities enshrines the ethical imperative to support people in making their own treatment decisions. Nonetheless, there are widespread reports of people with mental ill health being excluded from decision-making about their treatment in practice.
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning. We sought to consolidate and understand the evidence on the outcomes of shared and supported decision-making for people with mental ill health.
Methods: Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.
Results: There was evidence relating to the effects of these interventions on a range of outcomes for people with mental ill health, including on: suicidal crisis, symptoms, recovery, hospital admissions, treatment engagement and on the use of coercion by health professionals. There is favourable evidence for these types of interventions in improving some outcomes for people with mental ill health, more so than treatment-as-usual. For other outcomes, the evidence is preliminary but promising. Some areas for caution are also identified.
Conclusions: The review indicates that when the involvement of people with mental ill health in treatment planning is supported, there can be improved outcomes for their health and care. Areas for future research are highlighted.
Patient or public contribution: This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on the benefits of implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.
期刊介绍:
Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including:
• Person-centred care and quality improvement
• Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management
• Public perceptions of health services
• Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting
• Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation
• Empowerment and consumerism
• Patients'' role in safety and quality
• Patient and public role in health services research
• Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy
Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.