TY - JOUR
T1 - Embedding shared decision-making in the care of patients with severe and enduring mental health problems
T2 - The EQUIP pragmatic cluster randomised trial
AU - Lovell, Karina
AU - Bee, Penny
AU - Brooks, Helen
AU - Cahoon, Patrick
AU - Callaghan, Patrick
AU - Carter, Lesley Anne
AU - Cree, Lindsey
AU - Davies, Linda
AU - Drake, Richard
AU - Fraser, Claire
AU - Gibbons, Chris
AU - Grundy, Andrew
AU - Hinsliff-Smith, Kathryn
AU - Meade, Oonagh
AU - Roberts, Chris
AU - Rogers, Anne
AU - Rushton, Kelly
AU - Sanders, Caroline
AU - Shields, Gemma
AU - Walker, Lauren
AU - Bower, Peter
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Lovell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2018/8/22
Y1 - 2018/8/22
N2 - BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness is a major driver of worldwide disease burden. Shared decision-making is critical for high quality care, and can enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, it has not been translated into routine practice. This reflects a lack of evidence on the best way to implement shared decision-making, and the challenges of implementation in routine settings with limited resources. Our aim was to test whether we could deliver a practical and feasible intervention in routine community mental health services to embed shared decision-making for patients with severe mental illness, by improving patient and carer involvement in care planning. METHODS: We cluster randomised community mental health teams to the training intervention or usual care, to avoid contamination. Training was co-delivered to a total of 350 staff in 18 teams by clinical academics, working alongside patients and carers. The primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire, a self-report measure of 'autonomy support'. Primary and secondary outcomes were collected by self-report, six months after allocation. FINDINGS: In total, 604 patients and 90 carers were recruited to main trial cohort. Retention at six months was 82% (n = 497). In the main analysis, results showed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the intervention and usual care at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -0.064, 95% CI -0.343 to 0.215, p = 0.654). We found significant effects on only 1 secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention to embed shared decision-making in routine practice by improving involvement in care planning was well attended and acceptable to staff, but had no significant effects on patient outcomes. Enhancing shared decision-making may require considerably greater investment of resources and effects may only be apparent over the longer term.
AB - BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness is a major driver of worldwide disease burden. Shared decision-making is critical for high quality care, and can enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, it has not been translated into routine practice. This reflects a lack of evidence on the best way to implement shared decision-making, and the challenges of implementation in routine settings with limited resources. Our aim was to test whether we could deliver a practical and feasible intervention in routine community mental health services to embed shared decision-making for patients with severe mental illness, by improving patient and carer involvement in care planning. METHODS: We cluster randomised community mental health teams to the training intervention or usual care, to avoid contamination. Training was co-delivered to a total of 350 staff in 18 teams by clinical academics, working alongside patients and carers. The primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire, a self-report measure of 'autonomy support'. Primary and secondary outcomes were collected by self-report, six months after allocation. FINDINGS: In total, 604 patients and 90 carers were recruited to main trial cohort. Retention at six months was 82% (n = 497). In the main analysis, results showed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the intervention and usual care at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -0.064, 95% CI -0.343 to 0.215, p = 0.654). We found significant effects on only 1 secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention to embed shared decision-making in routine practice by improving involvement in care planning was well attended and acceptable to staff, but had no significant effects on patient outcomes. Enhancing shared decision-making may require considerably greater investment of resources and effects may only be apparent over the longer term.
KW - General Science & Technology
KW - MD Multidisciplinary
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052086127&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0201533
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0201533
M3 - Article
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 13
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 8
M1 - e0201533
ER -