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

Aims. 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. CEDAR (ISRCTN75841675) is a naturalistic prospective observational study with bimonthly assessments during a 12-month observation period. 588 adults with severe mental illness were consecutively recruited from caseloads of community mental health services at the six study sites (Germany, UK, Italy, Hungary, Denmark, and Switzerland). Clinical decision making was measured using two instruments (Clinical Decision Making Style Scale. CDMS;Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction Scale, CDIS) from patient and staff perspectives. Outcomes assessed were unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule, CANSAS). Mixed-effects multinomial regression was used to examine differences in involvement in and satisfaction with actual decision making. The effect of clinical decision making on outcome was examined using hierarchical linear modelling controlling for covariates. Results. Shared decision making was preferred by patients (2=135.08; p<0.001) and staff (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. A shift from shared to active involvement of patients is indicated, including the development and rigorous test of targeted interventions

Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice

Objective: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. Method: As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Results: Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32–4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48–6.82). Conclusion: More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction

Participation in medical decision-making across Europe: an international longitudinal multicenter study

Background: The purpose of this paper was to examine national differences in the desire to participate in decision-making of people with severe mental illness in six European countries. Methods: The data was taken from a European longitudinal observational study (CEDAR; ISRCTN75841675). A sample of 514 patients with severe mental illness from the study centers in Ulm, Germany, London, England, Naples, Italy, Debrecen, Hungary, Aalborg, Denmark and Zurich, Switzerland were assessed as to desire to participate in medical decision-making. Associations between desire for participation in decision-making and center location were analyzed with generalized estimating equations. Results: We found large cross-national differences in patients’ desire to participate in decision-making, with the center explaining 40% of total variance in the desire for participation (p<0.001). Averaged over time and independent of patient characteristics, London (mean=2.27), Ulm (mean=2.13) and Zurich (mean=2.14) showed significantly higher scores in desire for participation, followed by Aalborg (mean=1.97), where scores were in turn significantly higher than in Debrecen (mean=1.56). The lowest scores were reported in Naples (mean=1.14). Over time, desire for participation in decision-making increased significantly in Zurich (b=0.23) and decreased in Naples (b=-0.14). In all other centers, values remained stable. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that patients’ desire for participation in decisionmaking varies by location. We suggest that more research attention be focused on identifying specific cultural and social factors in each country to further explain observed differences across Europe

The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) - with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) - for use in mental health services. METHODS: An English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich. RESULTS: After appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff. CONCLUSIONS: CDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75841675.CEDAR study is funded by a grant from the Seventh Framework Programme (Research Area HEALTH-2007-3.1-4 Improving clinical decision making) of the European Union (Grant no. 223290)

When does shared decision making is adopted in psychiatric clinical practice? Results from a European multicentric study

© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. To identify factors associated with the use of shared decision making in routine mental health care in a large multicenter European study. Data have been collected within the study “Clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness” (CEDAR), which is a naturalistic, longitudinal, observational study carried out in six European countries. Patients with a severe mental illness attending outpatient units and their treating clinicians have been recruited. Clinicians’ Clinical Decision Making (CDM) styles have been explored through the Clinical Decision Making Style Scale. Patients’ clinical and social outcomes have been assessed through validated assessment instruments. The sample consisted of 588 patients and 213 professionals. Professionals were mainly psychiatrists (35.7%), nurses (21.6%), support workers, social workers or occupational therapists (24.9%), psychologists (9.9%) or trainees in psychiatry (4.7%). In the majority of cases, clinicians adopted a shared CDM style. Shared CDM was more frequently adopted with patients with psychotic disorders, with a better quality of life and social functioning. At multivariate analyses, the likelihood of adopting shared decision making increased in patients with higher levels of interpersonal relationships’ skills (p < 0.05) and global functioning (p < 0.01). On the contrary, being a trainee in psychiatry reduced the likelihood of adopting shared CDM (p < 0.008). Shared decision making has been adopted mainly when patients have a better functioning and less severe clinical symptomatology and by less trained clinicians, differently from national and international recommendations. More efforts should be made to implement interventions to promote shared CDM, with a specific focus for trainees in psychiatry

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)

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate psychometric properties of the Clinical Decision Making Style (CDMS) scale which measures general preferences for decision making as well as preferences regarding the provision of information to the patient from the perspectives of people with severe mental illness and staff. METHODS: A participatory approach was chosen for instrument development which followed 10 sequential steps proposed in a current guideline of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation of measures. Following item analysis, reliability, validity, and long-term stability of the CDMS were examined using Spearman correlations in a sample of 588 people with severe mental illness and 213 mental health professionals in 6 European countries (Germany, UK, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, and Switzerland). RESULTS: In both patient and staff versions, the two CDMS subscales "Participation in Decision Making" and "Information" reliably measure distinct characteristics of decision making. Validity could be demonstrated to some extent, but needs further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Together with two other five-language patient- and staff-rated measures developed in the CEDAR study (ISRCTN75841675) - "Clinical Decision Making in Routine Care" and "Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction" - the CDMS allows empirical investigation of the complex relation between clinical decision making and outcome in the treatment of people with severe mental illness across Europe