Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists : Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries

Background While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style - Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians' expertise, training, and practice. Results SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style. Conclusions The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.Peer reviewe

Excellent reliability and validity of the Addiction Medicine Training Need Assessment Scale across four countries.

BACKGROUND: Addiction is a context specific but common and devastating condition. Though several evidence-based treatments are available, many of them remain under-utilized, among others due to the lack of adequate training in addiction medicine (AM). AM Training needs may differ across countries because of difference in discipline and level of prior AM training or contextual factors like epidemiology and availability of treatment. For appropriate testing of training needs, reliability and validity are key issues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the AM-TNA Scale: an instrument specifically designed to develop the competence-based curriculum of the Indonesian AM course. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study in Indonesia, Ireland, Lithuania and the Netherlands the AM-TNA was distributed among a convenience sample of health professionals working in addiction care in The Netherlands, Lithuania, Indonesia and General Practitioners in-training in Ireland. 428 respondents completed the AM-TNA scale. To assess the factor structure, we used explorative factor analysis. Reliability was tested using Cronbach's Alpha, ANOVA determined the discriminative validity. RESULTS: Validity: factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure: One on providing direct patient treatment and care (Factor 1: clinical) and one factor on facilitating/supporting direct patient treatment and care (Factor 2: non-clinical) AM competencies and a cumulative 76% explained variance. Reliability: Factor 1 α = 0.983 and Factor 2: α = 0.956, while overall reliability was (α = 0.986). The AM-TNA was able to differentiate training needs across groups of AM professionals on all 30 addiction medicine competencies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study the AM-TNA scale had a strong two-factor structure and proofed to be a reliable and valid instrument. The next step should be the testing external validity, strengthening discriminant validity and assessing the re-test effect and measuring changes over time

Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries

Background While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style - Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians' expertise, training, and practice. Results SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style. Conclusions The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe