Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR)

  • B. Puschner (a1), T. Becker (a1), B. Mayer (a2), H. Jordan (a3), M. Maj (a4), A. Fiorillo (a4), A. Égerházi (a5), T. Ivánka (a5), P. Munk-Jørgensen (a6), M. Krogsgaard Bording (a7), W. Rössler (a8), W. Kawohl (a8), M. Slade (a3) and for the CEDAR study group...

Abstract

Aims.

Shared decision making has been advocated as a means to improve patient-orientation and quality of health care. There is a lack of knowledge on clinical decision making and its relation to outcome in the routine treatment of people with severe mental illness. This study examined preferred and experienced clinical decision making from the perspectives of patients and staff, and how these affect treatment outcome.

Methods.

“Clinical Decision Making and Outcome in Routine Care for People with Severe Mental Illness” (CEDAR; ISRCTN75841675) is a naturalistic prospective observational study with bimonthly assessments during a 12-month observation period. Between November 2009 and December 2010, adults with severe mental illness were consecutively recruited from caseloads of community mental health services at the six study sites (Ulm, Germany; London, UK; Naples, Italy; Debrecen, Hungary; Aalborg, Denmark; and Zurich, Switzerland). Clinical decision making was assessed using two instruments which both have parallel patient and staff versions: (a) The Clinical Decision Making Style Scale (CDMS) measured preferences for decision making at baseline; and (b) the Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction Scale (CDIS) measured involvement and satisfaction with a specific decision at all time points. Primary outcome was patient-rated unmet needs measured with the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS). Mixed-effects multinomial regression was used to examine differences and course over time in involvement in and satisfaction with actual decision making. The effect of clinical decision making on the primary outcome was examined using hierarchical linear modelling controlling for covariates (study centre, patient age, duration of illness, and diagnosis). Analysis were also controlled for nesting of patients within staff.

Results.

Of 708 individuals approached, 588 adults with severe mental illness (52% female, mean age = 41.7) gave informed consent. Paired staff participants (N = 213) were 61.8% female and 46.0 years old on average. Shared decision making was preferred by patients (χ 2 = 135.08; p < 0.001) and staff (χ 2 = 368.17; p < 0.001). Decision making style of staff significantly affected unmet needs over time, with unmet needs decreasing more in patients whose clinicians preferred active to passive (−0.406 unmet needs per two months, p = 0.007) or shared (−0.303 unmet needs per two months, p = 0.015) decision making.

Conclusions.

Decision making style of staff is a prime candidate for the development of targeted intervention. If proven effective in future trials, this would pave the ground for a shift from shared to active involvement of patients including changes to professional socialization through training in principles of active decision making.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR)
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR)
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR)
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: Dr B. Puschner, Section Process-Outcome Research, Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ludwig-Heilmeyer-Str. 2, 89312 Günzburg, Germany. (Email: bernd.puschner@bkh-guenzburg.de)

References

Hide All
Arvidsson, H (2008). The development of needs in a group of severely mentally ill. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 43, 705713.
Bollen, KA (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. A Wiley-interscience publication. Wiley: New York, NY.
Charles, C, Gafni, A, Whelan, T (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 44, 681692.
Chisholm, D, Knapp, M, Knudsen, HC, Amaddeo, F, Gaite, L, van Wijngaarden, B, EPSILON study group (2000). Client sociodemographic and service receipt inventory – European version. The British Journal of Psychiatry 177, 2833.
Clarke, E, Puschner, B, Jordan, H, Williams, P, Konrad, J, Kawohl, W, Bär, A, Rössler, W, Del Vecchio, V, Sampogna, G, Nagy, M, Süveges, A, Krogsgaard Bording, M, Slade, M (2014). Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, early view.
Coulter, A (2003). The Autonomous Patient: Ending Paternalism in Medical Care. The Nuffield Trust, TSO: London.
Del Piccolo, L, Goss, C (2012). People-centred care: new research needs and methods in doctor-patient communication. Challenges in mental health. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 21, 145149.
Duncan, E, Best, C, Hagen, S (2010). Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD007297.
von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, Gøtzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet 370, 14531457.
Entwistle, VA, Watt, IS (2006). Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: the case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Education and Counseling 63, 268278.
First, MB, Spitzer, RL, Gibbon, M, Williams, JBW (1997). Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders – Clinical Version (SCID-CV). American Psychiatric Press: Washington, DC.
Goss, C, Moretti, F, Mazzi, MA, Del Piccolo, L, Rimondini, M, Zimmermann, C (2008). Involving patients in decisions during psychiatric consultations. The British Journal of Psychiatry 193, 416421.
Hamann, J, Cohen, R, Leucht, S, Busch, R, Kissling, W (2005). Do patients with schizophrenia wish to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment? American Journal of Psychiatry 162, 23822384.
Hedeker, D (2003). A mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model. Statistics in Medicine 22, 14331446.
Hill, SA, Laugharne, R (2006). Decision making and information seeking preferences among psychiatric patients. Journal of Mental Health 15, 7584.
Hölzel, LP, Kriston, L, Härter, M (2013). Patient preference for involvement, experienced involvement, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with physician: a structural equation model test. BMC Health Services Research 13, 231.
Jones, SH, Thornicroft, G, Coffey, M, Dunn, G (1995). A brief mental health outcome scale-reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The British Journal of Psychiatry 166, 654659.
Joosten, EA, DeFuentes-Merillas, L, de Weert, GH, Sensky, T, van der Staak, CPF, de Jong, CA (2008). Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 77, 219226.
Junghan, UM, Leese, M, Priebe, S, Slade, M (2007). Staff and patient perspectives on unmet need and therapeutic alliance in community mental health services. The British Journal of Psychiatry 191, 543547.
Karnieli-Miller, O, Eisikovits, Z (2009). Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters. Social Science and Medicine 69, 18.
Kon, AA (2010). The shared decision-making continuum. Journal of the American Medical Association 304, 903904.
de las Cuevas, C, Rivero-Santana, A, Perestelo-Perez, L, Perez-Ramos, J, Serrano-Aguilar, P (2012). Attitudes toward concordance in psychiatry: a comparative, cross-sectional study of psychiatric patients and mental health professionals. BMC Psychiatry 12, 53.
Lasalvia, A, Bonetto, C, Salvi, G, Bissoli, S, Tansella, M, Ruggeri, M (2007). Predictors of changes in needs for care in patients receiving community psychiatric treatment: a 4-year follow-up study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 116, 3141.
Légaré, F, Ratté, S, Stacey, D, Kryworuchko, J, Gravel, K, Graham, ID, Turcotte, S (2010). Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD006732.
Puschner, B, Neumann, P, Jordan, H, Slade, M, Fiorillo, A, Giacco, D, Égerházi, A, Ivánka, T, Bording, MK, Sørensen, , Bär, A, Kawohl, W, Loos, S, for the CEDAR study group (2013). Development and psychometric properties of a five-language multiperspective instrument to assess clinical decision making style in the treatment of people with severe mental illness (CDMS). BMC Psychiatry 13, 48.
Puschner, B, Steffen, S, Slade, M, Kaliniecka, H, Maj, M, Fiorillo, A, Munk-Jorgensen, P, Larsen, JI, Egerhazi, A, Nemes, Z, Rössler, W, Kawohl, W, Becker, T (2010). Clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness (CEDAR): study protocol. BMC Psychiatry 10, 90.
Raudenbush, SW, Bryk, AS (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, California.
Ruggeri, M, Salvi, G, Perwanger, V, Phelan, M, Pellegrini, N, Parabiaghi, A (2006). Satisfaction with community and hospital-based emergency services amongst severely mentally ill service users. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41, 302309.
Singer, JD, Willett, JB (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York.
Slade, M, Cahill, S, Kelsey, W, Leese, M, Powell, R, Strathdee, G (2003). Threshold 4: an evaluation of the Threshold Assessment Grid as an aid to mental health referrals. Primary Care Mental Health 1, 4554.
Slade, M, Jordan, H, Clarke, E, Williams, S, Kaliniecka, H, Arnold, K, Fiorillo, A, Giacco, D, Luciano, M, Egerhazi, A, Nagy, M, Krogsgaard Bording, M, Østermark Sørensen, H, Rössler, W, Kawohl, W, Puschner, B, the CEDAR study group (2014). The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: Clinical Decision-making Involvement and Satisfaction (CDIS). BMC Health Services Research 14, 323.
Slade, M, Leese, M, Cahill, S, Thornicroft, G (2005). Patient-rated mental health needs and quality of life improvement. The British Journal of Psychiatry 187, 256261.
Storm, M, Edwards, A (2013). Models of user involvement in the mental health context: intentions and implementation challenges. Psychiatric Quarterly 84, 313327.
The Lancet (2011). Taking shared decision making more seriously. The Lancet 377, 784.
Torrey, WC, Drake, RE (2010). Practicing shared decision making in the outpatient psychiatric care of adults with severe mental illnesses: redesigning care for the future. Community Mental Health Journal 46, 433440.
Trauer, T, Tobias, G, Slade, M (2008). Development and evaluation of a patient-rated version of the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS-P). Community Mental Health Journal 44, 113124.
Watt, S (2000). Clinical decision-making in the context of chronic illness. Health Expectations 3, 6.
Wills, CE, Holmes-Rovner, M (2006). Integrating decision making and mental health interventions research: research directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 13, 925.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR)

  • B. Puschner (a1), T. Becker (a1), B. Mayer (a2), H. Jordan (a3), M. Maj (a4), A. Fiorillo (a4), A. Égerházi (a5), T. Ivánka (a5), P. Munk-Jørgensen (a6), M. Krogsgaard Bording (a7), W. Rössler (a8), W. Kawohl (a8), M. Slade (a3) and for the CEDAR study group...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.