TY - JOUR
T1 - Shared Decision Making With Young People at Ultra High Risk of Psychotic Disorder
AU - Simmons, Magenta Bender
AU - Brushe, Mary
AU - Elmes, Aurora
AU - Polari, Andrea
AU - Nelson, Barnaby
AU - Montague, Alice
N1 - Funding Information:
MS was supported by a Melbourne Research Fellowship from The University of Melbourne. This study was funded by a philanthropic donation from MessageMedia. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright © 2021 Simmons, Brushe, Elmes, Polari, Nelson and Montague.
PY - 2021/9/16
Y1 - 2021/9/16
N2 - Introduction: While the majority of young people who meet the criteria for being considered at increased risk of psychosis do not go on to develop a psychotic disorder, young people are currently being identified and treated in early intervention services. Ethical concerns have been raised concerning the decision about whether or not to provide treatment, and if so, what type of treatment. This study sought to support young people themselves to make these decisions with support from their clinician through a shared decision-making approach, facilitated by an online decision aid. Methods: This project used the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to guide the development and piloting of an online decision aid across two phases: (1) qualitative, semi-structured focus groups with young people who were past clients and clinicians from an early psychosis service; and (2) pilot testing of the decision aid with clinicians and young people who were current clients to finalize the development. Results: Issues discussed by clinicians in the focus group were grouped into three main areas: (1) engagement phase; (2) assessment and priorities for treatment; and (3) initial and ongoing decision making. Clients focused on the context in which the decisions were made, including as they experienced initial feelings of resistance, and then acceptance of efforts made to describe and treat their mental health challenges. Clients highlighted the need for collaboration between themselves and their clinician, and the need to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to take care of themselves. These focus group data were used to refine the online decision aid. Pilot testing revealed that while it was overall useful and relevant, important limitations were noted by both clients and clinicians. Discussion: The use of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in this area is feasible and has utility for both clients and clinicians. Use of such a tool can help to address the need to uphold the rights of young people as decision makers about their own care. Future efforts should embed decision aids within complex SDM interventions, and research to understand issues relating to implementation of these interventions.
AB - Introduction: While the majority of young people who meet the criteria for being considered at increased risk of psychosis do not go on to develop a psychotic disorder, young people are currently being identified and treated in early intervention services. Ethical concerns have been raised concerning the decision about whether or not to provide treatment, and if so, what type of treatment. This study sought to support young people themselves to make these decisions with support from their clinician through a shared decision-making approach, facilitated by an online decision aid. Methods: This project used the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to guide the development and piloting of an online decision aid across two phases: (1) qualitative, semi-structured focus groups with young people who were past clients and clinicians from an early psychosis service; and (2) pilot testing of the decision aid with clinicians and young people who were current clients to finalize the development. Results: Issues discussed by clinicians in the focus group were grouped into three main areas: (1) engagement phase; (2) assessment and priorities for treatment; and (3) initial and ongoing decision making. Clients focused on the context in which the decisions were made, including as they experienced initial feelings of resistance, and then acceptance of efforts made to describe and treat their mental health challenges. Clients highlighted the need for collaboration between themselves and their clinician, and the need to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to take care of themselves. These focus group data were used to refine the online decision aid. Pilot testing revealed that while it was overall useful and relevant, important limitations were noted by both clients and clinicians. Discussion: The use of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in this area is feasible and has utility for both clients and clinicians. Use of such a tool can help to address the need to uphold the rights of young people as decision makers about their own care. Future efforts should embed decision aids within complex SDM interventions, and research to understand issues relating to implementation of these interventions.
KW - at risk mental states
KW - clinical high risk
KW - early intervention
KW - psychosis
KW - shared decision making
KW - ultra high risk
KW - youth
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85116403664
U2 - 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.683775
DO - 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.683775
M3 - Article
C2 - 34603094
AN - SCOPUS:85116403664
SN - 1664-0640
VL - 12
JO - Frontiers in Psychiatry
JF - Frontiers in Psychiatry
M1 - 683775
ER -