Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信