Empowering Collaboration With Patients: Healthcare Staff's Perspectives on Conditions for Shared Decision-Making in Swedish Psychiatric Care

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Charlotte Cederborg, Märta Sund Levander, Berit M. Gustafsson
{"title":"Empowering Collaboration With Patients: Healthcare Staff's Perspectives on Conditions for Shared Decision-Making in Swedish Psychiatric Care","authors":"Charlotte Cederborg,&nbsp;Märta Sund Levander,&nbsp;Berit M. Gustafsson","doi":"10.1111/jep.70562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated in psychiatric care to facilitate patients' engagement in treatment discussions about their own care. However, applying SDM in practice involves more than simply referring to an advocated method. It is therefore interesting to study healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of the conditions necessary for patients to truly participate in SDM.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To explore healthcare staff's experiences of patient involvement in psychiatric care, paying particular attention to perceived prerequisites, barriers and strategies relevant to shared decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was an exploratory qualitative study, utilising an inductive approach. Twenty-eight psychiatric care professionals (21 women and 7 men; nurses (10), nurse's assistants (7), psychologists (2), psychotherapists/therapists (6), psychiatrists (1), junior doctors (1) and peer support (1)) participated in focus group interviews. Data was analysed using conventional content analysis, deriving coding categories directly from the transcripts without the influence of prior theoretical frameworks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Four main categories emerged: <i>care relationship</i>, <i>patient resources</i>, <i>organization</i> and <i>strategies in patient meetings</i>. Staff emphasised <i>time</i> as an overarching factor, which affected all the main categories. Trust, openness and mutual respect in the care relationship facilitate collaboration and patient involvement. Staff highlighted personalised care that aligns with patients' resource needs and values, supported by professionalism and transparency in communication. Beyond relational factors, organizational challenges—including time constraints and resource limitations—were barriers to patient involvement in SDM. Strategies such as motivational interviewing, documentation in patient records and care plans, and multidisciplinary teamwork were identified as facilitators.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, the study illustrates that staff work towards a good care relationship to strengthen patients' engagement in SDM in psychiatric care. To truly apply patient involvement and SDM in practice, organizational support is needed, in the form of more time, more available resources and clearer care structures. In addition, organizational aspects, such as integrating patient involvement into system-level care planning, education and structures for decision-making processes, could further enhance patient involvement in SDM. Further research is needed to investigate how these perceived states translate into other cultural psychiatric contexts and how they are experienced by patients.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13492985/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70562","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated in psychiatric care to facilitate patients' engagement in treatment discussions about their own care. However, applying SDM in practice involves more than simply referring to an advocated method. It is therefore interesting to study healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of the conditions necessary for patients to truly participate in SDM.

Aim

To explore healthcare staff's experiences of patient involvement in psychiatric care, paying particular attention to perceived prerequisites, barriers and strategies relevant to shared decision-making.

Methods

This was an exploratory qualitative study, utilising an inductive approach. Twenty-eight psychiatric care professionals (21 women and 7 men; nurses (10), nurse's assistants (7), psychologists (2), psychotherapists/therapists (6), psychiatrists (1), junior doctors (1) and peer support (1)) participated in focus group interviews. Data was analysed using conventional content analysis, deriving coding categories directly from the transcripts without the influence of prior theoretical frameworks.

Results

Four main categories emerged: care relationship, patient resources, organization and strategies in patient meetings. Staff emphasised time as an overarching factor, which affected all the main categories. Trust, openness and mutual respect in the care relationship facilitate collaboration and patient involvement. Staff highlighted personalised care that aligns with patients' resource needs and values, supported by professionalism and transparency in communication. Beyond relational factors, organizational challenges—including time constraints and resource limitations—were barriers to patient involvement in SDM. Strategies such as motivational interviewing, documentation in patient records and care plans, and multidisciplinary teamwork were identified as facilitators.

Conclusions

Overall, the study illustrates that staff work towards a good care relationship to strengthen patients' engagement in SDM in psychiatric care. To truly apply patient involvement and SDM in practice, organizational support is needed, in the form of more time, more available resources and clearer care structures. In addition, organizational aspects, such as integrating patient involvement into system-level care planning, education and structures for decision-making processes, could further enhance patient involvement in SDM. Further research is needed to investigate how these perceived states translate into other cultural psychiatric contexts and how they are experienced by patients.

授权与患者合作:医疗保健人员对瑞典精神病学护理共同决策条件的看法。
理由:共同决策(SDM)在精神科护理中被提倡,以促进患者参与关于他们自己护理的治疗讨论。然而,在实践中应用SDM涉及的不仅仅是简单地引用所提倡的方法。因此,研究医疗保健专业人员对患者真正参与SDM所需条件的看法和经验是很有趣的。目的:探讨医护人员对患者参与精神病学护理的经验,特别关注与共同决策相关的感知先决条件、障碍和策略。方法:采用归纳法进行探索性定性研究。28名精神科护理专业人员(女21名,男7名)、护士(10名)、护士助理(7名)、心理学家(2名)、心理治疗师/治疗师(6名)、精神科医生(1名)、初级医生(1名)和同伴支持(1名)参加了焦点小组访谈。数据分析使用传统的内容分析,直接从转录本中导出编码类别,而不受先前理论框架的影响。结果:出现了四个主要类别:护理关系、患者资源、患者会议的组织和策略。工作人员强调,时间是影响所有主要类别的首要因素。在护理关系中,信任、开放和相互尊重有助于合作和患者参与。工作人员强调,个性化护理符合患者的资源需求和价值观,并以专业和透明的沟通为支持。除了相关因素外,组织挑战(包括时间限制和资源限制)也是患者参与SDM的障碍。动机性访谈、患者记录和护理计划的文档化以及多学科团队合作等策略被认为是促进因素。结论:总体而言,本研究表明,在精神科护理中,工作人员努力建立良好的护理关系,以加强患者对SDM的参与。为了在实践中真正应用患者参与和SDM,需要组织的支持,以更多的时间,更多的可用资源和更清晰的护理结构的形式。此外,组织方面,如将患者参与纳入系统级护理计划,教育和决策过程结构,可以进一步提高患者参与SDM。需要进一步的研究来调查这些感知状态如何转化为其他精神病学文化背景以及患者如何体验它们。
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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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
小红书