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

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.

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.

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

AIMS: Shared decision making has been advocated as a means to improve patient-orientation and quality of health care. 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: "Clinical Decision Making and Outcome in Routine Care for People with Severe Mental Illness" (CEDAR; ISRCTN75841675) is a naturalistic prospective observational study with bimonthly assessments during a 12-month observation period. Between November 2009 and December 2010, adults with severe mental illness were consecutively recruited from caseloads of community mental health services at the six study sites (Ulm, Germany; London, UK; Naples, Italy; Debrecen, Hungary; Aalborg, Denmark; and Zurich, Switzerland). Clinical decision making was assessed using two instruments which both have parallel patient and staff versions: (a) The Clinical Decision Making Style Scale (CDMS) measured preferences for decision making at baseline; and (b) the Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction Scale (CDIS) measured involvement and satisfaction with a specific decision at all time points. Primary outcome was patient-rated unmet needs measured with the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS). Mixed-effects multinomial regression was used to examine differences and course over time in involvement in and satisfaction with actual decision making. The effect of clinical decision making on the primary outcome was examined using hierarchical linear modelling controlling for covariates (study centre, patient age, duration of illness, and diagnosis). Analysis were also controlled for nesting of patients within staff. RESULTS: Of 708 individuals approached, 588 adults with severe mental illness (52% female, mean age = 41.7) gave informed consent. Paired staff participants (N = 213) were 61.8% female and 46.0 years old on average. Shared decision making was preferred by patients (χ 2 = 135.08; p < 0.001) and staff (χ 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: Decision making style of staff is a prime candidate for the development of targeted intervention. If proven effective in future trials, this would pave the ground for a shift from shared to active involvement of patients including changes to professional socialization through training in principles of active decision making.

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 47.2% 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, the 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 decision-making 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.