A Systematic Review of Shared Decision–Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions

• Published in: Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) Vol. 72; no. 11; pp. 1288 - 1300
• Main Authors: Thomas, Elizabeth C, Ben-David, Shelly, Treichler, Emily, Roth, Stephanie, Dixon, Lisa B, Salzer, Mark, Zisman-Ilani, Yaara
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Psychiatric Association 01.11.2021; American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc
• Subjects: Clinical decision making; Decision making; Decision Making, Shared; Ethnicity; Humans; Male; Mental disorders; Mental Disorders - therapy; Mental health care; Minority Groups; Systematic review; Service delivery; Research; Decision aids; General psychiatry; Person-centered care; Decision support
• ISSN: 1075-2730; 1557-9700; 1557-9700
• DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000429

Objective:Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population.Methods:Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors.Results:Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs.Conclusions:Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.