Department of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 11;11(11):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub3.
One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society. International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.
To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.
We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies. We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents. Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations. Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.
每四个人中就会有一人在其一生中患有可诊断的心理健康疾病。此类状况会对个人及其家庭以及整个社会的生活产生毁灭性的影响。国际医疗保健政策制定者越来越提倡并将精神保健伙伴关系模式奉为圭臬。共同决策(SDM)就是这样一种伙伴关系方法。共同决策是一种服务使用者与提供者之间进行沟通的形式,双方都被认为是为这一过程带来专业知识,并共同做出决策。本综述评估了 SDM 干预措施是否能改善一系列结果。这是首次对该 Cochrane 综述的更新,首次发表于 2010 年。
评估 SDM 干预措施对患有各种心理健康状况的人群的效果,包括针对心理健康状况患者、照顾者或医疗保健专业人员的干预措施,评估结果包括一系列结果,包括临床结果、参与/参与决策过程(SDM 过程的观察;用户报告的、SDM 特有的遭遇结果)、康复、满意度、知识、治疗/药物的延续、卫生服务结果和不良结果。
我们于 2020 年 1 月在 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和 PsycINFO(2009 年至 2020 年 1 月)进行了检索。我们还检索了试验登记册和相关论文的参考文献,并联系了纳入研究的作者。我们于 2022 年 2 月更新了检索。当我们发现研究可能相关时,我们将其标记为正在等待分类的研究。
针对患有心理健康疾病的人群的 SDM 干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT),包括簇随机对照试验。
我们使用 Cochrane 预期的标准方法程序。两名综述作者独立筛选引文以确定是否纳入,提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。
本次更新综述包括 13 项新研究,共计 15 项 RCT。大多数参与者为患有严重精神疾病的成年人,如精神分裂症、抑郁症和双相情感障碍,且来自高收入国家。没有研究包括儿童或青少年。
我们不确定 SDM 干预措施是否会改善临床结果,例如精神病症状、抑郁、焦虑和再入院,因为证据的确定性非常低。对于再入院,我们在使用常规护理的研究和在对照组中使用认知训练的研究之间进行了亚组分析。亚组之间没有差异。关于参与(由患有心理健康疾病的人)或参与决策过程的程度,我们不确定 SDM 干预措施是否会改善与无干预相比的决策过程观察,因为证据的确定性非常低。另一方面,SDM 干预措施可能会改善干预后立即与无干预相比的 SDM 特定遭遇的用户报告结果(标准均数差(SMD)0.63,95%置信区间(CI)0.26 至 1.01;3 项研究,534 名参与者;低确定性证据)。然而,对于持续参与或参与决策过程,证据不足。
我们不确定 SDM 干预措施是否会改善与无干预相比的康复情况,因为证据的确定性非常低。我们不确定 SDM 干预措施是否会提高用户的整体满意度。然而,一项研究(241 名参与者)表明,SDM 干预措施可能会提高用户对所获得信息的某些方面的满意度,而不是无干预:提供的信息被评为有帮助(风险比(RR)1.33,95%CI 1.08 至 1.65);参与者表示强烈希望以这种方式获得其他治疗决策的信息(RR 1.35,95%CI 1.08 至 1.68);强烈推荐以这种方式与他人分享信息(RR 1.32,95%CI 1.11 至 1.58)。这些结果的证据确定性为中等。然而,同一项研究报告称,对信息量或清晰度可能几乎没有或没有影响,而另一项小型研究报告称,对 SDM 干预措施的照顾者满意度几乎没有或没有变化。医疗保健专业人员满意度的影响则喜忧参半:SDM 干预措施可能对连续评估的医疗保健专业人员满意度几乎没有或没有影响,但可能会改善分类评估的医疗保健专业人员满意度。我们不确定 SDM 干预措施是否会改善知识、通过就诊评估的治疗延续、药物延续、照顾者参与以及用户和医疗保健专业人员之间的关系,因为证据的确定性非常低。关于咨询时间的长短,SDM 干预措施可能与无干预相比几乎没有或没有影响(SMD 0.09,95%CI-0.24 至 0.41;2 项研究,282 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。另一方面,我们不确定 SDM 干预措施是否会因证据的确定性非常低而影响住院时间。没有对健康结果产生不良影响,也没有报告其他不良事件。
本次综述更新表明,与对照组相比,接受 SDM 干预措施的人可能会在遭遇后立即感到更大程度的参与。此外,SDM 干预措施可能对咨询时间的长短几乎没有或没有影响。总的来说,我们发现大多数证据的确定性都较低或非常低,这意味着基于迄今为止收集的研究,SDM 干预措施的效果的证据普遍较低。因此,在这一领域需要进一步研究。