The effects of treatment as usual versus a computerized clinical decision aid on shared decision-making in the treatment of psychotic disorders

被引:0
|
作者
Roebroek, L. O. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Bruins, J. [1 ,2 ]
Boonstra, A. [4 ]
Delespaul, P. A. [5 ,6 ]
Castelein, S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Lentis Res, Lentis Psychiat Inst, Hereweg 80, NL-9725 AG Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Rob Giel Res Ctr, Groningen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Groningen, Fac Behav & Social Sci, Groningen, Netherlands
[4] Univ Groningen, Fac Econ & Business, Groningen, Netherlands
[5] Maastricht Univ, Fac Psychiat & Psychol, Maastricht, Netherlands
[6] Mondriaan Mental Hlth Trust, Heerlen Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
Decision support; Clinical decision aids; Shared decision making; Psychosis; Psychiatry; Routine outcome monitoring; SCHIZOPHRENIA; PEOPLE; CONFLICT; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejpsy.2023.06.002
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Background and objectives: People with psychotic disorders can experience a lack of active involvement in their decisional process. Clinical decision aids are shared decision -making tools which are currently rarely used in mental healthcare. We examined the effects of Treatment EAssist (TREAT), a computerized clinical decision aid in psychosis care, on shared decision -making and satisfaction with consultations as assessed by patients. Methods: A total of 187 patients with a psychotic disorder participated. They received either treatment as usual in the first phase (TAU1), TREAT in the second phase or treatment as usual in the third phase of the trial (TAU2). The Decisional Conflict Scale was used as primary outcome measure for shared decision -making and patient satisfaction as secondary outcome. Results: A linear mixed model analysis found no significant effects between TAU 1 (b = -0.54, SE = 2.01, p = 0.80) and TAU 2 (b = -1.66, SE = 2.63, p = 0.53) compared to TREAT on shared decision -making. High patient rated satisfaction with the consultations was found with no significant differences between TAU 1 (b = 1.48, SE = 1.14, p = 0.20) and TAU 2 (b = 2.26, SE = 1.33, p = 0.09) compared to TREAT. Conclusion: We expected TREAT to enhance shared decision -making without decreasing satisfaction with consultations. However, no significant differences on shared decision -making or satisfaction with consultations were found. Our findings suggest that TREAT is safe to implement in psychosis care, but more research is needed to fully understand its effects on the decisional process. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. on behalf of Sociedad Espanola de Psiquiatria y Salud Mental.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Qualitative analysis of clinicians' perspectives on the use of a computerized decision aid in the treatment of psychotic disorders
    Roebroek, Lukas O.
    Bruins, Jojanneke
    Delespaul, Philippe
    Boonstra, Albert
    Castelein, Stynke
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [2] The effects of a computerized clinical decision aid on clinical decision-making in psychosis care
    Roebroek, Lukas O.
    Bruins, Jojanneke
    Boonstra, Albert
    Veling, Wim
    Jorg, Frederike
    Sportel, B. Esther
    Delespaul, Philippe A.
    Castelein, Stynke
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, 2022, 156 : 532 - 537
  • [3] The development and evaluation of a computerized decision aid for the treatment of psychotic disorders
    Tasma, Magda
    Roebroek, Lukas O.
    Liemburg, Edith J.
    Knegtering, Henderikus
    Delespaul, Philippe A.
    Boonstra, Albert
    Swart, Marte
    Castelein, Stynke
    BMC PSYCHIATRY, 2018, 18
  • [4] Qualitative analysis of clinicians’ perspectives on the use of a computerized decision aid in the treatment of psychotic disorders
    Lukas O. Roebroek
    Jojanneke Bruins
    Philippe Delespaul
    Albert Boonstra
    Stynke Castelein
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20
  • [5] The development and evaluation of a computerized decision aid for the treatment of psychotic disorders
    Magda Tasma
    Lukas O. Roebroek
    Edith J. Liemburg
    Henderikus Knegtering
    Philippe A. Delespaul
    Albert Boonstra
    Marte Swart
    Stynke Castelein
    BMC Psychiatry, 18
  • [6] Shared decision-making in ongoing outpatient psychiatric treatment
    McCabe, Rose
    Khanom, Husnara
    Bailey, Peter
    Priebe, Stefan
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2013, 91 (03) : 326 - 328
  • [7] Mental health professionals' experiences with shared decision-making for patients with psychotic disorders: a qualitative study
    Haugom, Espen W.
    Stensrud, Bjorn
    Beston, Gro
    Ruud, Torleif
    Landheim, Anne S.
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [8] A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC
    Rocque, Gabrielle B.
    Eltoum, Noon
    Caston, Nicole E.
    Williams, Courtney P.
    Oliver, Marian M.
    Moradi, Lauren
    Ingram, Stacey
    Azuero, Andres
    Pisu, Maria
    Bhatia, Smita
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2024, 206 (03) : 483 - 493
  • [9] Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study
    Haugom, Espen W.
    Stensrud, Bjorn
    Beston, Gro
    Ruud, Torleif
    Landheim, Anne S.
    BMC PSYCHIATRY, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [10] Facets of shared decision-making on drug treatment for adults with an eating disorder
    Himmerich, Hubertus
    Bentley, Jessica
    Lichtblau, Nicole
    Brennan, Clare
    Au, Katie
    INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY, 2019, 31 (04) : 332 - 346