The effect of clinician-patient alliance and communication on treatment adherence in mental health care: a systematic review

Background Nonadherence to mental health treatment incurs clinical and economic burdens. The clinician-patient alliance, negotiated through clinical interaction, presents a critical intervention point. Recent medical reviews of communication and adherence behaviour exclude studies with psychiatric samples. The following examines the impact of clinician-patient alliance and communication on adherence in mental health, identifying the specific mechanisms that mobilise patient engagement. Methods In December 2010, a systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Cinahl and yielded 6672 titles. A secondary hand search was performed in relevant journals, grey literature and reference. Results 23 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. The methodological quality overall was moderate. 17 studies reported positive associations with adherence, only four of which employed intervention designs. 10 studies examined the association between clinician-patient alliance and adherence. Subjective ratings of clinical communication styles and messages were assessed in 12 studies. 1 study examined the association between objectively rated communication and adherence. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of methods. Findings were presented as a narrative synthesis. Conclusions Clinician-patient alliance and communication are associated with more favourable patient adherence. Further research of observer rated communication would better facilitate the application of findings in clinical practice. Establishing agreement on the tasks of treatment, utilising collaborative styles of communication and discussion of treatment specifics may be important for clinicians in promoting cooperation with regimens. These findings align with those in health communication. However, the benefits of shared decision making for adherence in mental health are less conclusive than in general medicine

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)