Shared decision making interventions in mental healthcare: a protocol for an umbrella review

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a key component of person-centred care and recovery from mental illness. Although the principles of SDM have been well documented, there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish SDM in mental healthcare. The objective of the present protocol is to describe the methods for an umbrella review to determine the effectiveness elements of SDM interventions for persons diagnosed with a mental illness. An umbrella review’s key characteristic is that it only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. / Methods and Analysis: Electronic searches will be performed in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycINFO. Based on Joanna Briggs Institute recommended guidelines, review articles will be included if they were published between 2010 and 2021. This approach will help identify current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in mental illness. Included articles will be assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool and ratings of the quality of evidence in each review. Presentation of results will align with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Findings will be stratified by mode of intervention and implementation characteristics and will inform development of SDM taxonomy in mental healthcare. / Ethics and dissemination: This umbrella review will focus on the analysis of secondary data and does not require ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated widely to clinicians, researchers and services users via journal publication, conference presentations and social media. The results will contribute to the conceptualisation and understanding of effective SDM interventions in mental healthcare and to improving the quality of SDM for individuals with a mental illness. / PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020190700

Social network interventions in mental healthcare: a protocol for an umbrella review

Introduction: Social networks (SNs) can play a crucial role in the process of recovery from mental illness. Yet there is no standard best practice for involving SNs to optimise patient recovery. It is therefore critical to explore the diversity of SN approaches in mental health, highlight gaps in the evidence and suggest future directions for research and practice. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review of SN interventions for the care and/or treatment of mental illness. // Methods and analysis: Nine electronic databases will be searched for the relevant journal articles: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycINFO. We will include reviews which extracted information about the quantity, structure and quality of patient’s SNs as well as frequency of contact. The range of publication dates of the included articles will be from 2010 and 2021, as recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool and ratings of the quality of evidence will be used to assess the quality of the included reviews. The results will be presented in accordance with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Findings will inform the development of an SN framework to guide the design and evaluation of psychosocial interventions. // Ethics and dissemination: This umbrella review will involve secondary data analysis and ethical approval is not required. The target audience includes clinicians, researchers and service users, who will be reached with tailored materials through journal publications, conference presentations and social media. The presentation of the results will provide a more complete picture of relevant evidence and explicit basis from which to improve psychosocial well-being for people diagnosed with a mental illness

A strengths-based case management service for people with serious mental illness in Israel: A randomized controlled trial

Case management services for people with serious mental illness are generally found to be effective, but controlled and randomized studies assessing such services are scarce. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of a new strengths-based case management (SBCM) service in Israel, using a randomized controlled approach. The sample consisted of 1276 individuals with serious mental illness, who consume psychiatric rehabilitation services (PRS) in the community, and were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive the SBCM service in addition to treatment-as-usual PRS. Quality of life, goal setting and attainment, unmet needs, self-efficacy, interpersonal relationships, symptom severity, and service utilization were assessed by clients at onset and after 20 months. Results show that SBCM participants improved in self-efficacy, unmet needs, and general quality of life, and set more goals than the control group. SBCM participants also consumed fewer services at follow-up. Results suggest that SBCM services are effective in helping individuals with serious mental illness set personal goals and use PRS in a better and more focused manner

Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards

Background This article evaluates the evidence for the inclusion of patient narratives in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We define patient narratives as stories, testimonials, or anecdotes that provide illustrative examples of the experiences of others that are relevant to the decision at hand. Method To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of narratives in PtDAs, we conducted a narrative scoping review of the literature from January 2013 through June 2019 to identify relevant literature published since the last International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) update in 2013. We considered research articles that examined the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes or described relevant theoretical mechanisms. Results The majority of the empirical work on narratives did not measure concepts that are typically found in the PtDA literature (e.g., decisional conflict). Yet, a few themes emerged from our review that can be applied to the PtDA context, including the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes (knowledge, behavior change, and psychological constructs), as well as several theoretical mechanisms about how and why narratives work that can be applied to the PtDA context. Conclusion Based on this evidence update, we suggest that there may be situations when narratives could enhance the effectiveness of PtDAs. The recent theoretical work on narratives has underscored the fact that narratives are a multifaceted construct and should no longer be considered a binary option (include narratives or not). However, the bottom line is that the evidence does not support a recommendation for narratives to be a necessary component of PtDAs

Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies—A systematic review

<div><p>Background</p><p>The Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) is a 9-item measure of the decisional process in medical encounters from both patients’ and physicians’ perspectives. It has good acceptance, feasibility, and reliability. This systematic review aimed to 1) evaluate the use of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc in intervention studies on shared decision making (SDM) in clinical settings, 2) describe how the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc performed regarding sensitivity to change, and 3) assess the methodological quality of studies and study protocols that use the measure.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2010 and October 2015 that evaluated interventions to facilitate SDM. The search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Medline), reference tracking, citation tracking, and personal knowledge. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts as well as full texts of potentially relevant records. We extracted the data using a pilot tested sheet, and we assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tools from the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).</p><p>Results</p><p>Five completed studies and six study protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The measure was used in a variety of health care settings, mainly in Europe, to evaluate several types of interventions. The reported mean sum scores ranged from 42 to 75 on a scale from 0 to 100. In four studies no significant change was detected in the mean-differences between main groups. In the fifth study the difference was small. Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias in four of the five completed studies, while the study protocols received moderate quality ratings.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>We found a wide range of areas in which the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were applied. In the future this review may help researchers decide whether the measure fits their purposes. Furthermore, the review revealed risk of bias in previous trials that used the measure, and may help future trials decrease this risk. More research on the measure’s sensitivity to change is strongly suggested.</p></div