50Both extremes of these models can have significant limitations for people obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gadequate <strong>in</strong>formation, clarify<strong>in</strong>g personal values and preferences, and mak<strong>in</strong>geffective decisions that are more likely to be associated with favorable outcomes. Inan SDM process, the exchange of <strong>in</strong>formation is bidirectional, a supportive contextexists for the clarification and shar<strong>in</strong>g of values and preferences, and responsibilityfor decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g about the options is equally shared between the consumer andcare provider as appropriate and determ<strong>in</strong>ed by both partners (Charles et al., 1999;Edwards & Elwyn, 2006).Autonomy and SDM. An SDM approach <strong>in</strong>cludes an emphasis on respect for theautonomy of an <strong>in</strong>dividual, a value that is deeply embedded <strong>in</strong> traditional Americanculture and many other Western societies. 3 In Western health care, a person’sparticipation <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g occurs on a spectrum of traditional to <strong>in</strong>formedchoice models. Research has shown that most people who use Western health careservices prefer the SDM model <strong>in</strong> which partners engage <strong>in</strong> a dialog and come to aconsensual decision (Benbassat, Pilpel, & Tidhar, 1998; Elwyn & Edwards, 2001;Murray, Pollack, White, & Lo, 2007a). 4 A representative sample of U.S. physiciansalso showed that 75 percent preferred SDM (Murray, Pollack, White, & Lo, 2007b),although current evidence <strong>in</strong>dicates that SDM has not been widely implemented<strong>in</strong> practice (Gravel, Legare, & Graham, 2006). Exceptions <strong>in</strong> which the traditionalmedical (nonautonomous) model can be appropriate are true emergency situations(e.g., severe life-threaten<strong>in</strong>g traumatic <strong>in</strong>jury) or <strong>in</strong>stances when a person is totallyunable to <strong>in</strong>teract or process <strong>in</strong>formation (e.g., coma, severe cognitive impairment).Models <strong>in</strong> which only the consumer or the provider makes a decision may be mostappropriate for situations <strong>in</strong> which there is low uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty or conflict <strong>in</strong> decisionmak<strong>in</strong>g(Frosch & Kaplan, 1999; Whitney, 2003).Research on SDM <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong>OverviewIn mental health care, the practice and study of SDM is just beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to be addressedand the actual evidence base is currently <strong>in</strong>sufficient to provide strong empiricalsupport for the use of SDM as an evidence-based practice <strong>in</strong> mental health care(Fenton, 2003; Fischer, 2006; Hamann et al., 2003). Much of the newer researchis <strong>in</strong>ternational and largely concentrated <strong>in</strong> Western European countries. <strong>Decision</strong>mak<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> theory has been applied <strong>in</strong> health care practice and research s<strong>in</strong>ce the1960s, but until the 1980s was largely focused on the decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g of health care3The value on <strong>in</strong>dividualism is not universal and may be viewed as irrelevant or represent a counter-culturalvalue <strong>in</strong> some societies.4Certa<strong>in</strong> other exceptions and debates about the use of SDM are discussed later <strong>in</strong> this paper.<strong>Shared</strong> <strong>Decision</strong>-<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong>: Practice, Research, and Future Directions
51providers only (Wills & Homes-Rovner, 2006). In general health care, SDM (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> the use of decision aids to support SDM) has been shown to be associatedwith favorable outcomes, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g reduced decisional conflict, greater knowledge,improved satisfaction with the decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g process, improved ability to makechoices (fewer people undecided), improved concordance of decisions with personalvalues, more active <strong>in</strong>volvement of consumers <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g, and improvedcommunication between consumers and providers (O’Connor et al., 2003; Thistlethwaite,Evans, Tie, & Heal, 2006). However, limited research has been done <strong>in</strong>the mental health field on understand<strong>in</strong>g how decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g preferences and processesimpact the choices that are made by consumers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g service engagementand <strong>in</strong>tervention outcomes (Cooper, 2006). A small but <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g number of studiespublished with<strong>in</strong> the past five years have focused on SDM <strong>in</strong> people experienc<strong>in</strong>gdepression and schizophrenia. These studies demonstrate some favorable outcomesof SDM (see later <strong>in</strong> this report for review of relevant mental health studies). Ethicalarguments have also been proposed for SDM as a self-evident right based on <strong>in</strong>dividualautonomy and respect for persons (Duggan, Geller, Cooper, & Beach, 2006;Nelson, Lord, & Ochocka, 2001).While a majority of people are <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formed about their treatmentoptions, potential disadvantages of universal application of SDM are also beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gto be identified and critiqued. Almost no empirical <strong>in</strong>formation is available on theviews of diverse cultural groups about SDM and <strong>in</strong>terventions to support <strong>in</strong>volvement<strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g. These issues <strong>in</strong>clude the preference of some <strong>in</strong>dividuals forthe traditional medical model for decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g (e.g., older, less well-educated,lower literacy people who are <strong>in</strong> poorer health and who are mak<strong>in</strong>g high-stakes decisions)(Lev<strong>in</strong>son, Kao, & Kuby, 2005; Rob<strong>in</strong>son & Thomson, 2001; Shalowitz &Wolf, 2004; Thompson, 2007; also see de Haes 2006 for a critique of vulnerabilityissues <strong>in</strong> relation to SDM). These critiques highlight needed areas of research, as wellas the need to better specify key concepts such as participation, concordance, andSDM (Charavel, Bremond, Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Mignotte, & Carrere, 2001). Legaland ethical issues with concordance are also be<strong>in</strong>g highlighted, such as people’s preferencesto sometimes reject guidel<strong>in</strong>es-based care (Penston, 2007).SDM for Depression TreatmentA limited but rapidly expand<strong>in</strong>g body of research literature exists on SDM for depressiontreatment. Garfield et al., <strong>in</strong> a qualitative descriptive study of 51 peoplebeg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g antidepressant medication, found that many <strong>in</strong>dividuals had unmet <strong>in</strong>formationneeds and that <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g varied between <strong>in</strong>dividualsand at different periods <strong>in</strong> treatment (Garfield, Francis, & Smith, 2004). Loh et al.,<strong>in</strong> a survey of 30 general practitioners and 207 persons with depression at <strong>in</strong>itialconsultation and 6–8 weeks later, found that depression severity predicted cl<strong>in</strong>icaloutcome but not consumer participation <strong>in</strong> a structural equation model. The effect<strong>Shared</strong> <strong>Decision</strong>-<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong>: Practice, Research, and Future Directions
- Page 4:
iiContentsIntroduction ............
- Page 11 and 12: 5outpatient commitment (Holmes-Rovn
- Page 13 and 14: 7Advantages• Practitioners can be
- Page 15: 9Section 2The Practice of SharedDec
- Page 22 and 23: 16Section 3SDM ResearchCurrent rese
- Page 24: 18Mental health care providers are
- Page 27 and 28: 21want mental health treatment or d
- Page 29: 23Some participants raised concerns
- Page 37 and 38: 31Section 6ConclusionsShared decisi
- Page 39 and 40: 33Fellowes, D., Wilkinson, S., & Mo
- Page 41 and 42: 35Power, A. Kathryn. (July 10, 2007
- Page 43 and 44: 37Appendix AResourcesThis list is p
- Page 45 and 46: 39Appendix BShared Decision-MakingM
- Page 47 and 48: 41Annelle Primm, M.D., M.P.H.Direct
- Page 49 and 50: 43Supplement 1Shared Decision-Makin
- Page 51 and 52: 45IntroductionThe consumer-driven r
- Page 53 and 54: 47Background: Definitions of SDM an
- Page 55: 49• Freedom to live in the commun
- Page 59: 53SDM for Schizophrenia TreatmentBu
- Page 63 and 64: 57I interact with my consumers; I f
- Page 65 and 66: 59ReferencesAdams, J. R., & Drake,
- Page 67 and 68: 61Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Kinnersle
- Page 69 and 70: 63Murray, E., Pollack, L., White, M
- Page 71 and 72: 65Thistlethwaite, J., Evans, R., Ti
- Page 73 and 74: 67AbstractShared decision-making is
- Page 75 and 76: 69Confronting Critical Challenges:
- Page 77 and 78: 71into treatment should still be in
- Page 79 and 80: 73these approaches, people are more
- Page 81 and 82: 75consumers to engage with their pr
- Page 83 and 84: 77that were produced in the U.S., w
- Page 85 and 86: 79a healing partnership and develop
- Page 87 and 88: 81Shared Decision-Making in Mental
- Page 89 and 90: 83However, peer support requires st
- Page 91 and 92: 85ConclusionsImplementation of SDM
- Page 93 and 94: 87Fellowes, D., Wilkinson, S., & Mo
- Page 95 and 96: 89President’s Commission for the
- Page 97 and 98: 91Supplement 3Aids to Assist Shared
- Page 99 and 100: 93IntroductionSignificance of Share
- Page 101 and 102: 95In recent years, a variety of tec
- Page 103 and 104: 97• Provide balanced information,
- Page 105 and 106: 99Form of Access or AdministrationC
- Page 107 and 108:
101ences). Some of these Web-based
- Page 109 and 110:
103video about shared decision-maki
- Page 111 and 112:
105clarify one’s own values and p
- Page 113 and 114:
107potential results, than on quant
- Page 115 and 116:
109Once again, however, it is worth
- Page 117 and 118:
111who belong to minority groups or
- Page 119 and 120:
113Hamann, J., Langer, B., Winkler,
- Page 122:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN