Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Shared treatment decision-making and empowerment related outcomes in psychosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Diana Stovell (a1), Anthony P. Morrison (a1), Margarita Panayiotou (a2) and Paul Hutton (a2)

Abstract

Background

In the UK almost 60% of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who use mental health services say they are not involved in decisions about their treatment. Guidelines and policy documents recommend that shared decision-making should be implemented, yet whether it leads to greater treatment-related empowerment for this group has not been systematically assessed.

Aims

To examine the effects of shared decision-making on indices of treatment-related empowerment of people with psychosis.

Method

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of shared decision-making concerning current or future treatment for psychosis (PROSPERO registration CRD42013006161). Primary outcomes were indices of treatment-related empowerment and objective coercion (compulsory treatment). Secondary outcomes were treatment decision-making ability and the quality of the therapeutic relationship.

Results

We identified 11 RCTs. Small beneficial effects of increased shared decision-making were found on indices of treatment-related empowerment (6 RCTs; g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.51), although the effect was smaller if trials with >25% missing data were excluded. There was a trend towards shared decision-making for future care leading to reduced use of compulsory treatment over 15–18 months (3 RCTs; RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.35–1.02), with a number needed to treat of approximately 10 (95% CI 5–∞). No clear effect on treatment decision-making ability (3 RCTs) or the quality of the therapeutic relationship (8 RCTs) was found, but data were heterogeneous.

Conclusions

For people with psychosis the implementation of shared treatment decision-making appears to have small beneficial effects on indices of treatment-related empowerment, but more direct evidence is required.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Dr Paul Hutton, Section of Clinical Psychology, Doorway 6, Medical Building, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. Email: paul.hutton.cf@ed.ac.uk

Footnotes

Hide All

The literature reviewed refers to people with psychosis variously as ‘patients', ‘service users' and ‘clients’; ‘patients' is used here for consistency and in accordance with BJPsych house style.

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 Schizophrenia Commission. The Abandoned Illness: A Report From the Schizophrenia Commission, p. 30. Rethink Mental Illness, 2012.
2 Department of Health. Liberating the NHS: No decision about me, without me – Government response to the consultation. Department of Health, 2012.
3 Charles, C, Gafni, A, Whelan, T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 651–61.
4 Duncan, E, Best, C, Hagen, S. Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: CD007297.
5 Hamann, J, Leucht, S, Kissling, W. Shared decision making in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2003; 107: 403–9.
6 Beitinger, R, Kissling, W, Hamann, J. Trends and perspectives of shared decision-making in schizophrenia and related disorders. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2014; 27: 222–9.
7 Patel, SR, Bakken, S, Ruland, C. Recent advances in shared decision making for mental health. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2008; 21: 606–12.
8 Adams, JR, Drake, RE. Shared decision-making and evidence-based practice. Community Ment Health J 2006; 42: 87105.
9 Schauer, C, Everett, A, del Vecchio, P, Anderson, L. Promoting the value and practice of shared decision-making in mental health care. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2007; 31: 5461.
10 Byrne, RE, Davies, L, Morrison, AP. Priorities and preferences for the outcomes of treatment of psychosis: a service user perspective. Psychosis 2010; 2: 210–7.
11 Pitt, L, Kilbride, M, Nothard, S, Welford, M, Morrison, AP. Researching recovery from psychosis: a user-led project. Psychiatr Bull 2007; 31: 5560.
12 Grealish, A, Tai, S, Hunter, A, Morrison, AP. Qualitative exploration of empowerment from the perspective of young people with psychosis. Clin Psychol Psychother 2011; 20: 136–48.
13 Law, H, Morrison, AP. Recovery in psychosis: a Delphi study with experts by experience. Schizophr Bull 2014; 40: 1347–55.
14 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Psychosis and Schizophrenia in Adults: Prevention and Management. NICE, 2014.
15 Higgins, JPT, Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley–Blackwell, 2011.
16 Cohen, J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, 1988.
17 Stovell, D, Morrison, A, Hutton, P. Shared decision making interventions for psychosis: rationale and protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO CRD42013006161. PROSPERO International Register of Systematic Reviews 2013 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013006161).
18 Higgins, JP, Altman, DG, Gotzsche, PC, Juni, P, Moher, D, Oxman, AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
19 Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, Alonso-Coello, P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–6
20 Ioannidis, JP, Trikalinos, TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ 2007; 176: 1091–6.
21 Elbogen, EB, Swanson, JW, Appelbaum, PS, Swartz, MS, Ferron, J, Van Dorn, RA, et al. Competence to complete psychiatric advance directives: effects of facilitated decision making. Law Hum Behav 2007; 31: 275–89.
22 Swanson, JW, Swartz, MS, Elbogen, EB, van Dorn, RA, Ferron, J, Wagner, HR, et al. Facilitated psychiatric advance directives: a randomized trial of an intervention to foster advance treatment planning among persons with severe mental illness. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1943–51.
23 Henderson, C, Flood, C, Leese, M, Thornicroft, G, Sutherby, K, Szmukler, G. Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 329: 136.
24 Thornicroft, G, Farrelly, F, Szmukler, G, Birchwood, M, Waheed, W, Flach, C, et al. Clinical outcomes of Joint Crisis Plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 1634–41.
25 Ruchlewska, A, Wierdsma, AI, Kamperman, AM, van der Gaag, M, Smulders, R, Roosenschoon, BJ, et al. Effect of crisis plans on admissions and emergency visits: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2014; 9: e91882.
26 Hamann, J, Langer, B, Winkler, V, Busch, R, Cohen, R, Leucht, S, et al. Shared decision making for in-patients with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 114: 265–73.
27 Van Os, J, Altamura, A, Bobes, J, Gerlach, J, Hellewell, J, Kasper, S, et al. Evaluation of the Two-Way Communication Checklist as a clinical intervention. Br J Psychiatry 2004; 184: 7983.
28 Steinwachs, DM, Roter, DL, Skinner, EA, Lehman, AF, Fahey, M, Cullen, B, et al. A web-based program to empower patients who have schizophrenia to discuss quality of care with mental health providers. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62: 1296–302.
29 Woltmann, E, Wilkniss, S, Teachout, A, McHugo, G, Drake, R. Trial of an electronic decision support system to facilitate shared decision making in community mental health. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62: 5460.
30 Hamann, J, Mendel, R, Meier, A, Asani, F, Pausch, E, Leucht, S, et al. ‘How to speak to your psychiatrist’: shared decision-making training for inpatients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62: 1218–21.
31 Harris, N, Lovell, K, Day, J, Roberts, C. An evaluation of a medication management training programme for community mental health professionals; service user level outcomes: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud 2009; 46: 645–52.
32 O'Donnell, M, Parker, G, Propberts, M, Matthews, R, Fisher, D, Johnson, B, et al. A study of client-focused case management and consumer advocacy: the Community and Consumer Service Project. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 1999; 33: 684–93.
33 Farrelly, S, Lester, H, Rose, D, Birchwood, M, Marshall, M, Waheed, W, et al. Barriers to shared decision making in mental health care: qualitative study of the Joint Crisis Plan for psychosis. Health Expect 2016; 19: 448–58.
34 Royal College of Psychiatrists. Report of the Second Round of the National Audit of Schizophrenia (NAS2) 2014. Health Care Quality Improvement Partnership, 2014.
35 Furukawa, TA, Leucht, S. How to obtain NNT from Cohen's d: comparison of two methods. PLoS One 2011; 6: e19070.
36 Hamann, J, Mendel, R, Cohen, R, Heres, S, Ziegler, M, Buhner, M, et al. Psychiatrists' use of shared decision making in the treatment of schizophrenia: patient characteristics and decision topics. Psychiatr Serv 2009; 60: 1107–12.
37 Thom, DH, Ribisl, KM, Stewart, AL, Luke, DA. Further validation and reliability testing of the Trust in Physician Scale. The Stanford Trust Study Physicians. Med Care 1999; 37: 510–7.
38 Hamann, J, Cohen, R, Leucht, S, Busch, R, Kissling, W. Do patients with schizophrenia wish to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment? Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 2382–4.
39 Hutton, P, Morrison, AP, Yung, AR, Taylor, PJ, French, P, Dunn, G. Effects of drop-out on efficacy estimates in five Cochrane reviews of popular antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2012; 126: 111.
40 Hutton, P, Taylor, PJ, Mulligan, L, Tully, S, Moncrieff, J. Quetiapine immediate release v. placebo for schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and reappraisal. Br J Psychiatry 2015; 206: 360–70.
41 Mallett, S, Clarke, M. The typical Cochrane review. How many trials? How many participants? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 820–3.
42 Farrelly, S, Brown, G, Rose, D, Doherty, E, Henderson, RC, Birchwood, M, et al. What service users with psychotic disorders want in a mental health crisis or relapse: thematic analysis of joint crisis plans. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2014; 49: 1609–17.
43 Byrne, R, Morrison, AP. Service users' priorities and preferences for treatment of psychosis: a user-led Delphi study. Psychiatr Serv 2014; 65: 1167–9.
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Stovell et al. supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (779 KB)
779 KB

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

Shared treatment decision-making and empowerment related outcomes in psychosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Diana Stovell (a1), Anthony P. Morrison (a1), Margarita Panayiotou (a2) and Paul Hutton (a2)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *