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.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & 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.

丹麦精神卫生服务部门的一项探索性横断面研究:日常精神卫生实践中住院和门诊精神卫生专业人员的决策风格偏好、康复知识和态度
在精神卫生保健中,共同决策(SDM)是康复范式的核心部分。然而,实现SDM可能具有挑战性,专业人员可能更喜欢不同的决策风格。本研究探讨了决策风格的偏好,并考察了其与医院常规服务中心理健康专业人员对康复的知识和态度的关系。在丹麦五个地区之一的医院服务的精神卫生专业人员(N = 552)中进行了一项探索性横断面调查。决策风格偏好采用临床决策风格量表-员工问卷进行测量,而专业人员对康复的知识和态度采用康复知识量表进行评估。尽管大多数参与者(72.4%)更喜欢共同的决策风格,但根据专业、工作经验和环境的不同,偏好也存在差异。五分之一的人报告说他们接受了SDM培训,更少的人报告说他们获得了决策支持工具。研究发现,专业人员对决策风格的偏好在康复知识和态度上存在差异:那些喜欢共享或主动风格的人似乎比那些喜欢被动、临床主导风格的人在RKI上得分更高。虽然本质上是描述性的,但研究结果表明了决策偏好的模式,可能有助于为未来的实施工作提供信息。研究结果还表明,支持共享或主动决策风格与以复苏为导向的价值观之间存在潜在的一致性。需要进一步的研究来调查偏好如何转化为实际的临床实践,以及如何将康复的知识和态度作为康复导向的护理来操作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信