Preferences for Decision-Making Style and Knowledge of and Attitudes To Recovery in Mental Health Professionals Working in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Routine Mental Health Practice: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in the Danish Mental Health Services.
Lisa Korsbek, Stine Bjerrum Moeller, Marie Bonde, Rikke Amalie Agergaard Jensen
{"title":"Preferences for Decision-Making Style and Knowledge of and Attitudes To Recovery in Mental Health Professionals Working in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Routine Mental Health Practice: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in the Danish Mental Health Services.","authors":"Lisa Korsbek, Stine Bjerrum Moeller, Marie Bonde, Rikke Amalie Agergaard Jensen","doi":"10.1007/s10488-025-01472-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In mental health care, shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of the recovery paradigm. However, implementing SDM can be challenging, and professionals may prefer different decision-making styles. This study explored preferences for decision-making style and examined their association with knowledge of and attitudes to recovery among mental health professionals in routine hospital-based services. An exploratory cross-sectional survey was conducted among mental health professionals (N = 552) in hospital-based services in one of Denmark's five regions. Preferences for decision-making style were measured using the Clinical Decision Making Style Scale - Staff Questionnaire, while professionals' knowledge of and attitudes to recovery were assessed using the Recovery Knowledge Inventory. Although the majority of participants (72.4%) preferred a shared decision-making style, there were differences in preferences based on profession, work experience, and setting. One in five reported having received SDM training, and fewer reported having access to decision-support tools. Indications of differences in knowledge of and attitudes to recovery between professionals' preferences for decision-making styles were found: those who preferred a shared or active style seemed to score higher on the RKI compared to those who preferred a passive, clinician-led style. While descriptive in nature, the findings suggest patterns in decision-making preferences that may help inform future implementation efforts. The results also suggest a potential alignment between endorsement of shared- or active decision-making styles and recovery-oriented values. Further research is needed to investigate how preferences translate into actual clinical practice and how knowledge about and attitudes to recovery may be operationalized as recovery-oriented care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-025-01472-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In mental health care, shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of the recovery paradigm. However, implementing SDM can be challenging, and professionals may prefer different decision-making styles. This study explored preferences for decision-making style and examined their association with knowledge of and attitudes to recovery among mental health professionals in routine hospital-based services. An exploratory cross-sectional survey was conducted among mental health professionals (N = 552) in hospital-based services in one of Denmark's five regions. Preferences for decision-making style were measured using the Clinical Decision Making Style Scale - Staff Questionnaire, while professionals' knowledge of and attitudes to recovery were assessed using the Recovery Knowledge Inventory. Although the majority of participants (72.4%) preferred a shared decision-making style, there were differences in preferences based on profession, work experience, and setting. One in five reported having received SDM training, and fewer reported having access to decision-support tools. Indications of differences in knowledge of and attitudes to recovery between professionals' preferences for decision-making styles were found: those who preferred a shared or active style seemed to score higher on the RKI compared to those who preferred a passive, clinician-led style. While descriptive in nature, the findings suggest patterns in decision-making preferences that may help inform future implementation efforts. The results also suggest a potential alignment between endorsement of shared- or active decision-making styles and recovery-oriented values. Further research is needed to investigate how preferences translate into actual clinical practice and how knowledge about and attitudes to recovery may be operationalized as recovery-oriented care.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles. The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues. The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like. Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.