CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions

Open access
Duncan, Edward, Best, Catherine, Hagen, Suzanne·2010·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007297.pub2PMC PMC7209977
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of provider-, consumer- or carer-directed shared decision making interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, on a range of outcomes including: patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and health service outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2008), British Nursing Index and Archive (1985 to November 2008) and SIGLE (1890 to September 2005 (database end date)). We also searched online trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs); and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of interventions to increase shared decision making in people with mental health conditions (by DSM or ICD-10 criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on recruitment methods, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, participant flow and outcome data from each study were extracted by one author and checked by another. Data are presented in a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We included two separate German studies involving a total of 518 participants. One study was undertaken in the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and the other in the treatment of people newly diagnosed with depression in primary care. Regarding the primary outcomes, one study reported statistically significant increases in patient satisfaction, the other study did not. There was no evidence of effect on clinical outcomes or hospital readmission rates in either study. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an indication that interventions to increase shared decision making increased doctor facilitation of patient involvement in decision making, and did not increase consultation times. Nor did the interventions increase patient compliance with treatment plans. Neither study reported any harms of the intervention. Definite conclusions cannot be drawn, however, on the basis of these two studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn at present about the effects of shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. There is no evidence of harm, but there is an urgent need for further research in this area.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007297.pub2

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Chapman, 2008, Patient-centered communication during primary care visits for depressive symptoms: what is the role of physician personality?, Medical Care, 46, 806
  2. Beck, 1996, Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II
  3. Bedi, 2000, Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care: partially randomised preference trial, British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 312, 10.1192/bjp.177.4.312 · DOI
  4. Consumers Mental Health Service (CMHS), 2006, Shared Decision-Making (SDM): Making Recovery Real in Mental Health Care Project
  5. Committee on crossing the quality chasm: Adaptation to mental health and addictive disorders Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions: quality chasm series Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press 2006
  6. Schmidt, 1989, Satisfaction with inpatient care. Development of a questionnaire and first validity assessments (in German), Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 39, 248
  7. Slade, 1999, CAN: Camberwell Assessment of Need. A comprehensive assessment tool for people with severe mental illness
  8. World Health Organisation, 1992, ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders
  9. Wills, 2006, Integrated decision making and mental health intervention research: research directions, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13, 9
  10. Wing, 1996, HoNOS: Health of the nation outcome scales: report on research and development, July 1993 - December 1995

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 256

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Duncan, E., Best, C., & Hagen, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01-20
Issue
1
Pages
CD007297-CD007297
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd007297.pub2
PMC
PMC7209977
OpenAlex
W2104315782
Cited by
256
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 18
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2022-11-11)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
making, mental illness, patient-provider communication, patient satisfaction, medication adherence, schizophrenia, depression, newly diagnosed depression, primary care, hospital readmission, caregiver involvement, self-determination, community mental health services
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Depression, Humans, Patient Participation, Schizophrenia, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review