No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
La décision médicale partagée en psychiatrie : quelle utilité ?
Abstract
La pratique de la décision médicale partagée est désormais entrée dans l’usage dans les disciplines médicales pour lesquelles les choix thérapeutiques sont complexes, lourds de conséquences et d’enjeux (vitaux, de qualité de vie…), et exigent par conséquent la prise en compte des préférences et valeurs des patients. Devenue un critère de qualité de soin, elle fait l’objet de recommandations de la part des tutelles [1]. En psychiatrie, cette approche, qui transforme la relation médecin–malade, est encore peu revendiquée dans notre pays, et son intérêt sans doute encore sous-estimé. Elle suscite pourtant un intérêt croissant dans de nombreux pays, étant l’expression d’une médecine qui n’est plus seulement centrée sur la maladie, mais désormais aussi sur la personne et sur son devenir. Restaurer la personne dans une posture active de gestion de sa maladie, de reprise d’un contrôle sur sa vie, devient dès lors un objectif majeur, exigeant de valoriser ses compétences et de promouvoir – jusque dans le soin – ses capacités de choisir, de décider et d’agir. Dans le même esprit, en psychiatrie, le recours aux « directives anticipées » concernant la conduite à tenir en cas de rechute, illustre ce souci d’associer la personne aux décisions relatives à son traitement, y compris en période de crise, pour établir une relation de partenariat plutôt que d’assistance. L’enjeu est non seulement une meilleure acceptation et observance des choix thérapeutiques, mais un soutien au processus d’autonomisation et de rétablissement de la personne. Des études montrent que la majorité des patients souhaitent être associés aux décisions concernant leur traitement [2] et de nombreux travaux s’attachent à favoriser l’identification des préférences, valeurs et attentes des patients et à soutenir la mise en œuvre de cette pratique en santé mentale [3,4].
... Indeed some studies have been conducted in France and papers published both at the national and international level. They were conducted by multidisciplinary research groups, in various domains in particular cancerology [7][8][9][10][11][12][13], psychiatry [14,15], and SDM itself [16]. Furthermore seminars and congresses in the field of SDM are regularly organized in France for example in psychiatry [17,18] or oncology [19,20]. ...
... The three multidimensional tools comprised 4-5 dimensions. The mean number of items per tool was of 12 (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). The response scale used was mainly of the Likert-5 type (n = 7) [43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. ...
Background:
The concept of shared decision making (SDM) has been developing in many countries since the 1990s. The main challenge of SDM, based on the principles of respect for the person's autonomy, is to improve patients' participation, should they so wish, in decisions concerning their personal health. To our knowledge, there is only one SDM evaluation tool validated in metropolitan French that does not measure the entire SDM construct. The aim of this review was to identify existing and validated SDM measurement tools to determine which of them could be adapted in French to cover all the dimensions of SDM.
Methods:
A systematic literature review was conducted based on articles found in the PubMed and PsycINFO bibliographic databases and published between 2010 and 2014. Studies were included if the main goal of the article was the development and psychometric validation of an SDM measurement tool, not specific to any given disease or situation, in English, French and Spanish. We used the nine essential elements of the Makoul and Clayman's integrative model to describe the different existing tools.
Results:
Nineteen studies were included. Seven new tools had been published since Scholl's previous review in 2011. We observed a recent spread of the multi-appraiser approach, which combines points of view of patients, healthcare professionals and sometimes external observers. Several models were used for the development of the seven newly identified tools. None of the identified tools assessed the nine elements of the Makoul's model. Three of these elements, however, were systematically measured in each of the new tools: "defining/explaining the problem", "patient values/preferences", and "checking/clarifying understanding".
Conclusions:
We identified several potentially interesting tools for the French context which could cover the whole elements of Makoul's model. The next step will be the development of a French-language instrument based on these tools.
Located in a community mental health center, the first decision support center in psychiatry used peer support and an Internet-based software program, CommonGround, to assist consumers in decisional uncertainty about psychiatric medication use and to foster shared decision making between the consumer and prescriber. This study examined the impact of the decision support center on the consumer-doctor interaction in the medication consultation. A pretest/posttest design assigned consumers to either an experimental or control group for 4 months. The Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC) (Brown, Stewart, McCracken, McWhinney, & Levenstein, 1986) was used to evaluate the medication consultation. The Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (PPPC) (Stewart, Meredith, Ryan, & Brown, 200422.
Stewart , M. ,
Meredith , L. ,
Ryan , B. L. , &
Brown , J. B. ( 2004 ). The patient perception of patient centeredness questionnaire . London , Ontario : University of Western Ontario . View all references) was used to evaluate the consumer's and prescriber's perceptions of the consultation. A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance was not significant for the combined dependent variable of the measures at Time 2, while controlling for the measures at Time 1. When the CommonGround report was referenced in the experimental group, post hoc analyses revealed significant differences (t[41] = 4.14, p = .001) in the PPCC-consumer score. This study provides provisional evidence of the effectiveness of a shared decision-making intervention. The clinical potential of a program that assists mental health consumers in communicating decisional uncertainty and developing shared decisions concerning medication use is worthy of further study.
In the last decades, shared decision-making (SDM) models have been developed to increase patient involvement in treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a SDM intervention (SDMI) for patients dependent on psychoactive substances in addiction health care programs. The intervention consisted of a structured procedure to reach a treatment agreement and comprised 5 sessions.
Clinicians in 3 treatment centres in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to the SDMI or a standard procedure to reach a treatment agreement.
A total of 220 substance-dependent patients receiving inpatient treatment were randomised either to the intervention (n = 111) or control (n = 109) conditions. Reductions in primary substance use (F((1, 124)) = 248.38, p < 0.01) and addiction severity (F((8)) = 27.76, p < 0.01) were found in the total population. Significant change was found in the total population regarding patients' quality of life measured at baseline, exit and follow-up (F((2, 146)) = 5.66, p < 0.01). On the European Addiction Severity Index, SDMI showed significantly better improvements than standard decision-making regarding drug use (F((1, 164)) = 7.40, p < 0.01) and psychiatric problems (F((1, 164)) = 5.91, p = 0.02) at 3-month follow-up.
SDMI showed a significant add-on effect on top of a well-established 3-month inpatient intervention. SDMI offers an effective, structured, frequent and well-balanced intervention to carry out and evaluate a treatment agreement.