精神卫生保健中的支持性决策干预:对精神疾病患者结局证据的系统回顾

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-12-22 DOI:10.1111/hex.70134
Cathy J. Francis, Michael Hazelton, Rhonda L. Wilson
{"title":"精神卫生保健中的支持性决策干预:对精神疾病患者结局证据的系统回顾","authors":"Cathy J. Francis,&nbsp;Michael Hazelton,&nbsp;Rhonda L. Wilson","doi":"10.1111/hex.70134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Most people with mental ill health want to be involved in decision-making about their care, many mental health professionals now recognise the importance of this (at least <i>in-principle</i>) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities enshrines the ethical imperative to support people in making their own treatment decisions. Nonetheless, there are widespread reports of people with mental ill health being excluded from decision-making about their treatment <i>in practice</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning. We sought to consolidate and understand the evidence on the outcomes of shared and supported decision-making for people with mental ill health.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There was evidence relating to the effects of these interventions on a range of outcomes for people with mental ill health, including on: suicidal crisis, symptoms, recovery, hospital admissions, treatment engagement and on the use of coercion by health professionals. There is favourable evidence for these types of interventions in improving some outcomes for people with mental ill health, more so than treatment-as-usual. For other outcomes, the evidence is preliminary but promising. Some areas for caution are also identified.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The review indicates that when the involvement of people with mental ill health in treatment planning is supported, there can be improved outcomes for their health and care. Areas for future research are highlighted.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on the benefits of implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664045/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health\",\"authors\":\"Cathy J. Francis,&nbsp;Michael Hazelton,&nbsp;Rhonda L. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Most people with mental ill health want to be involved in decision-making about their care, many mental health professionals now recognise the importance of this (at least <i>in-principle</i>) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities enshrines the ethical imperative to support people in making their own treatment decisions. Nonetheless, there are widespread reports of people with mental ill health being excluded from decision-making about their treatment <i>in practice</i>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning. We sought to consolidate and understand the evidence on the outcomes of shared and supported decision-making for people with mental ill health.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There was evidence relating to the effects of these interventions on a range of outcomes for people with mental ill health, including on: suicidal crisis, symptoms, recovery, hospital admissions, treatment engagement and on the use of coercion by health professionals. There is favourable evidence for these types of interventions in improving some outcomes for people with mental ill health, more so than treatment-as-usual. For other outcomes, the evidence is preliminary but promising. Some areas for caution are also identified.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The review indicates that when the involvement of people with mental ill health in treatment planning is supported, there can be improved outcomes for their health and care. Areas for future research are highlighted.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on the benefits of implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664045/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70134\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数患有精神疾病的人希望参与他们的护理决策,许多精神卫生专业人员现在认识到这一点的重要性(至少在原则上),《残疾人权利公约》规定了支持人们自己做出治疗决定的道德责任。然而,有广泛的报告称,精神疾病患者被排除在实际治疗决策之外。目的:我们对干预措施的定量、定性和混合方法研究进行了系统回顾,以提高精神卫生服务使用者参与治疗计划的机会。我们试图巩固和理解关于精神疾病患者共同和支持决策结果的证据。方法:检索7个数据库,筛选5137篇文献。在2008年至2023年10月期间发表的以英文发表的关于成人服务使用者干预的文章被纳入。纳入的140篇文章中的证据是根据JBI关于混合方法系统评价的指南合成的。结果:有证据表明,这些干预措施对精神疾病患者的一系列结果产生了影响,包括:自杀危机、症状、康复、住院、接受治疗以及卫生专业人员使用胁迫手段。有有利的证据表明,这些类型的干预措施在改善精神疾病患者的某些结果方面,比常规治疗效果更好。至于其他结果,证据是初步的,但很有希望。还确定了一些需要注意的领域。结论:本综述表明,当支持精神疾病患者参与治疗计划时,可以改善他们的健康和护理结果。强调了未来的研究领域。患者或公众贡献:本系统评价在所有阶段均由具有精神卫生服务使用经验的研究人员指导,该研究人员不希望在此时被确认。这些发现可能会让组织、研究人员和从业人员了解实施支持性决策的好处,让精神疾病患者更多地参与到他们的医疗保健中来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health

Background

Most people with mental ill health want to be involved in decision-making about their care, many mental health professionals now recognise the importance of this (at least in-principle) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities enshrines the ethical imperative to support people in making their own treatment decisions. Nonetheless, there are widespread reports of people with mental ill health being excluded from decision-making about their treatment in practice.

Objectives

We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning. We sought to consolidate and understand the evidence on the outcomes of shared and supported decision-making for people with mental ill health.

Methods

Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.

Results

There was evidence relating to the effects of these interventions on a range of outcomes for people with mental ill health, including on: suicidal crisis, symptoms, recovery, hospital admissions, treatment engagement and on the use of coercion by health professionals. There is favourable evidence for these types of interventions in improving some outcomes for people with mental ill health, more so than treatment-as-usual. For other outcomes, the evidence is preliminary but promising. Some areas for caution are also identified.

Conclusions

The review indicates that when the involvement of people with mental ill health in treatment planning is supported, there can be improved outcomes for their health and care. Areas for future research are highlighted.

Patient or Public Contribution

This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on the benefits of implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
期刊最新文献
Erratum to “What I Wish I Had Known: Examining Parent Accounts of Managing the Health of Their Child With Intellectual Disability” Bridging the Gap: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Impact of the Involvement of Researchers With Lived Experience on a Multisite Randomised Control Trial in the National Probation Service in England and Wales The Forgotten Voices: Enabling Children and Young People With Intellectual Disability to Express Their Views on Their Inpatient Hospital Experience Setting Primary Health and Social Care Priorities Using a Deliberative Democratic Participatory Approach The World Café as a Tool for Evaluating the Level of Acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 Screening in School Settings, Puglia Region, Italy, 2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1