Intimate partner violence and mental ill health among global populations of Indigenous women: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognised as a major obstacle to the achievement of gender equality and human development. Its adverse physical and mental health consequences have been reported to affect women of all ages and backgrounds. Although Indigenous women seem to experience higher rates of partner abuse than non-Indigenous women, mental health consequences of IPV among this population are not yet clearly established in the literature. This study systematically reviewed the global literature on mental health outcomes and risk factors for mental ill health among Indigenous women who experienced IPV. METHODS: Primary quantitative and mixed methods studies that reported about mental health and IPV among Indigenous women (aged 14+) were included. 21 bibliographic databases were searched until January 2017. Quality of included studies was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings are reported according to PRISMA-P 2015. RESULTS: 13 studies were identified. The majority of studies reported very high rates of IPV and high prevalence of mental disorders. The most frequently identified types of IPV were physical and/or sexual violence, verbal aggression, and emotional abuse. The strongest predictor of poor mental health was physical violence. The most commonly reported mental health outcomes were depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small number of studies identified, the available evidence suggests that experiences of IPV and mental disorders among Indigenous women are linked and exacerbated by poverty, discrimination, and substance abuse. More research is needed to better understand distributions and presentations of IPV-related mental illness in this population.

Trends, challenges, and priorities for shared decision making in mental health: The first umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model promoting patient-centered care that has not been routinely utilized in mental health. Inconsistent definitions, models, measurement tools, and lack of sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of SDM interventions are potential contributors to the limited use of SDM in mental health. AIMS: (1) Provide the first systematic analysis of global development trends and challenges of SDM research; (2) clarify the meaning, role, and measurement of SDM in mental health; (3) create a theoretical framework for key effective SDM components to guide future development and implementation of SDM interventions. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Included reviews focused on SDM interventions for prevention and/or treatment of mental illness in adults. A narrative synthesis was performed to capture the range of interventions, populations, measurement tools, comparisons, and outcomes. RESULTS: 10 systematic reviews of SDM in mental health were included with 100 nested studies spanning from 2006 to 2020. All reviews focused on dyadic and psychopharmacological decision-making. Primary outcomes of SDM in mental health interventions include treatment satisfaction, medication adherence, symptom severity, quality of life, and hospital readmissions. Participant-related factors unique to SDM in mental health, such as stigma and mental capacity, were not reported. CONCLUSIONS: The current landscape of SDM in mental health is overwhelmingly disconnected from the needs and experiences of potential end-users; clients, clinicians, and family members. Most SDM interventions and tools were adapted from physical health and are mainly geared to psychopharmacological decision-making. The SDM in Mental Health Framework (SDM-MH), developed here, expands the scope of decisions to non-psychopharmacological discussions, diversifies the pool of SDM participants and settings, and offers potential primary target outcomes of SDM in mental health to reduce heterogeneity across studies.

Measures of Shared Decision Making for People With Mental Disorders and Limited Decisional Capacity: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model to improve treatment decision making and is underused for people with mental health conditions and limited, impaired, or fluctuating decisional capacity. SDM measures are essential to enhancing the adoption and implementation of SDM practices, yet no tools or research findings exist that explicitly focus on measuring SDM with such patients. The aim of this review was to identify instruments that measure SDM involving individuals with mental health conditions and limited decisional capacity, their family members, and their health and social care providers. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases. The authors included peer-reviewed, quantitative articles published in English during 2009-2022 that focused on adults (≥18 years old). All authors performed the screening independently. RESULTS: A total of 7,956 records were identified, six of which met the inclusion criteria for full-text review and five of which were analyzed (one full-text article was not available). No instruments were identified that measured forms of SDM involving patients with mental health conditions and limited, impaired, or fluctuating decisional capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement instruments to address and assess SDM in health care-related communication processes involving individuals with a mental health condition and limited decisional capacity are needed.

Peer support and shared decision making in Open Dialogue: Opportunities and recommendations.

Open dialogue (OD) is a person-centred social network model of crisis and continuing mental healthcare, which promotes agency and long-term recovery in mental illness. Peer support workers who have lived experience of mental illness play a key role in OD in the UK, as they enhance shared understanding of mental health crisis as part of the OD model and provide a sense of belonging and social inclusion. These elements are in alignment with the shared decision making (SDM) approach in mental health, which focuses on person-centred communication in treatment decision-making. The previously documented benefits of peer-led SDM include increased engagement with services, symptom reduction, increased employment opportunities, and reduced utilization of mental and general health services. While the contribution of peer support and SDM principles to OD has been acknowledged, there is only a small body of literature surrounding this development, and little guidance on how peer support can enhance treatment decision-making and other aspects of OD. This viewpoint, which was co-authored by people with lived experience of mental illness, clinicians, and researchers, discusses practical implications and recommendations for research and training for the provision of a co-produced OD model grounded in peer support and SDM.

Exploring patients' experience of peer-supported open dialogue and standard care following a mental health crisis: qualitative 3-month follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Experience of crisis care may vary across different care models. AIMS: To explore the experience of care in standard care and 'open dialogue' (a peer-supported community service focused on open dialogue and involving social networks for adults with a recent mental health crisis) 3 months after a crisis. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 participants (6 received open dialogue; 5 received treatment as usual (TAU)) in a feasibility study of open dialogue and analysed the data using a three-step inductive thematic analysis to identify themes that (a) were frequently endorsed and (b) represented the experiences of all participants. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (a) feeling able to rely on and access mental health services; (b) supportive and understanding family and friends; (c) having a choice and a voice; and (d) confusion and making sense of experiences. Generally, there was a divergence in experience across the two care models. Open dialogue participants often felt able to rely on and access services and involve their family and friends in their care. TAU participants described a need to rely on services and difficulty when it was not met, needing family and friends for support and wanting them to be more involved in their care. Some participants across both care models experienced confusion after a crisis and described benefits of sense-making. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding crisis care experiences across different care models can inform service development in crisis and continuing mental healthcare services.

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. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http:/ /www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO), registration number CRD42020192873.

NICE shared decision making guidelines and mental health: challenges for research, practice and implementation.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated an ambitious effort to develop the first shared decision making guidelines. The purpose of this commentary is to identify three main concerns pertaining to the new published guidelines for shared decision making research, practice, implementation and cultural differences in mental health.

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.