ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is a widely accepted standard of patient-centred care that leads to improved clinical outcomes, yet it is commonly underutilised in the field of mental health. Furthermore, little is known regarding patient decision making around antipsychotic medication, which is often poorly adhered to. We aim to explore psychiatric patients' experiences of antipsychotic medication decision making in order to develop a patient decision aid to promote shared decision making. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with patients with chronic psychotic illnesses (n = 20) who had previously made a decision about taking or changing antipsychotic medication. Transcripts were coded and analysed for thematic content and continued until thematic saturation. These themes subsequently informed the development of a decision aid with the help of expert guidance. Further patient input was sought using the think aloud method (n = 3). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients participated in the study. Thematic analysis revealed that 'adverse effects' was the most common theme identified by patients surrounding antipsychotic medication decision-making followed by 'mode and time of administration', 'symptom control' and 'autonomy'. The final decision aid is included to provoke further discussion and development of such aids. CONCLUSIONS: Patients commonly report negative experiences of antipsychotic medication, in particular side-effects, which remain critical to future decision making around antipsychotic medication. Clinical encounters that increase patient knowledge and maximise autonomy in order to prevent early negative experiences with antipsychotic medication are likely to be beneficial.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Decision Making , Decision Support Techniques , Mental Disorders/psychology , Patient Participation/psychology , Adult , Chronic Disease , Female , Focus Groups , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/drug therapy , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
Background. Several psychometric instruments are available for the diagnostic interview of subjects at ultra high risk (UHR) of psychosis. Their diagnostic comparability is unknown. Methods. All referrals to the OASIS (London) or CAMEO (Cambridgeshire) UHR services from May 13 to Dec 14 were interviewed for a UHR state using both the CAARMS 12/2006 and the SIPS 5.0. Percent overall agreement, kappa, the McNemar-Bowker χ (2) test, equipercentile methods, and residual analyses were used to investigate diagnostic outcomes and symptoms severity or frequency. A conversion algorithm (CONVERT) was validated in an independent UHR sample from the Seoul Youth Clinic (Seoul). Results. There was overall substantial CAARMS-versus-SIPS agreement in the identification of UHR subjects (n = 212, percent overall agreement = 86%; kappa = 0.781, 95% CI from 0.684 to 0.878; McNemar-Bowker test = 0.069), with the exception of the brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (BLIPS) subgroup. Equipercentile-linking table linked symptoms severity and frequency across the CAARMS and SIPS. The conversion algorithm was validated in 93 UHR subjects, showing excellent diagnostic accuracy (CAARMS to SIPS: ROC area 0.929; SIPS to CAARMS: ROC area 0.903). Conclusions. This study provides initial comparability data between CAARMS and SIPS and will inform ongoing multicentre studies and clinical guidelines for the UHR psychometric diagnostic interview.
