Decision-making quality characteristics of patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.

<p>Decision-making quality characteristics of patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.</p

Development and pilot of a decision-aid for patients with bipolar II disorder and their families making decisions about treatment options to prevent relapse

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>Treatment decisions in bipolar II disorder (BPII) are finely-balanced and sensitive to patient preferences. This pilot study evaluated a decision-aid booklet (DA) for patients with BPII (and their family) to obtain evidence on its acceptability, feasibility, safety, and usefulness in potential end-users.</p><p>Methods</p><p>The DA booklet was developed according to International Patient Decision-Aid Standards. Thirty-one patients diagnosed with BPII and their families (<i>n</i> = 11), who were currently making or had previously made treatment decisions, participated. Participants read the DA and completed validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. A follow-up semi-structured telephone interview elicited more in-depth DA feedback (<i>n</i> = 40).</p><p>Results</p><p>Patients and family endorsed the DA booklet as: easy-to-use (100% agree), useful in treatment decision-making (100%), presenting balanced (patients = 96.8%, family = 100%), up-to-date (93.5%, 100%) and trustworthy information (93.5%, 100%) that did not provoke anxiety (93.5%, 90.9%). All participants stated that they would recommend the DA to others. Following DA use, all except one participant (97.6%) demonstrated adequate treatment knowledge (> 50% score). Patients reported low decisional conflict (<i>M</i> = 18.90/100) following DA use and felt well-prepared to make treatment decisions (<i>M</i> = 4.28/5). Most patients (90.3%) indicated uptake of treatments consistent with the best available clinical evidence. Additionally, a large proportion of patients made an informed choice about medication (65.5%) with adjunctive psychological treatment (50.0%), based on adequate knowledge and their treatment values. Interview findings further supported the DA’s acceptability among participants.</p><p>Discussion</p><p>Pilot findings indicate that patients with BPII and their family consider this DA booklet highly acceptable and useful in making evidence-based treatment decisions that align with their treatment preferences.</p></div

Pre-existing decision-making characteristics of patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.

<p>Pre-existing decision-making characteristics of patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.</p

Demographic characteristics of patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.

<p>Demographic characteristics of patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.</p

Quantitative participant feedback on the decision-aid (DA) in the patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.

<p>Quantitative participant feedback on the decision-aid (DA) in the patient (<i>n</i> = 31) and family (<i>n</i> = 11) samples.</p

Data_Sheet_1_A systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of workplace-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of problematic substance use.PDF

Employee alcohol and other drug use can negatively impact the workplace, resulting in absenteeism, reduced productivity, high turnover, and worksite safety issues. As the workplace can influence employee substance use through environmental and cultural factors, it also presents a key opportunity to deliver interventions, particularly to employees who may not otherwise seek help. This is a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of problematic substance use. Five databases were searched for efficacy, effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness studies and reviews published since 2010 that measured use of psychoactive substances (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, opioids, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics, and stimulants) as a primary or secondary outcome, in employees aged over 18. Thirty-nine articles were identified, 28 describing primary research and 11 reviews, most of which focused solely on alcohol use. Heterogeneity between studies with respect to intervention and evaluation design limited the degree to which findings could be synthesized, however, there is some promising evidence for workplace-based universal health promotion interventions, targeted brief interventions, and universal substance use screening. The few studies that examined implementation in the workplace revealed specific barriers including lack of engagement with e-health interventions, heavy use and reluctance to seek help amongst male employees, and confidentiality concerns. Tailoring interventions to each workplace, and ease of implementation and employee engagement emerged as facilitators. Further high-quality research is needed to examine the effectiveness of workplace substance use testing, Employee Assistance Programs, and strategies targeting the use of substances other than alcohol in the workplace.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227598, PROSPERO [CRD42021227598].</p