Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

Measurement issues of shared decision making in mental health: challenges and opportunities

Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez (Evaluation Unit, Canary Islands Health Service, El Rosario, Spain) (Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC), Spain) (Center for Biomedical Research of the Canary Islands (CIBICAN), Spain)
Amado Rivero-Santana (Canarian Foundation for Health Research (FUNCANIS), Spain) (Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC), Spain) (Center for Biomedical Research of the Canary Islands (CIBICAN), Spain)
Yolanda Alvarez-Perez (Canarian Foundation for Health Research (FUNCANIS), Spain)
Yaara Zisman-Ilani (Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) (Geisel School of Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA)
Emma Kaminskiy (Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK)
Pedro Serrano Aguilar (Evaluation Unit of the Canary Islands Health Service (SESCS), Spain) (Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC), Spain) (Center for Biomedical Research of the Canary Islands (CIBICAN), Spain)

Mental Health Review Journal

ISSN: 1361-9322

Publication date: 11 September 2017

Abstract

Purpose

Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of health care in which patients are involved in the decision-making process about their treatment, considering their preferences and concerns in a deliberative process with the health care provider. Many existing instruments assess the antecedents, process, or the outcomes of SDM. The purpose of this paper is to identify the SDM-related measures applied in a mental health context.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors performed a systematic review in several electronic databases from 1990 to October 2016. Studies that assessed quantitatively one or more constructs related to SDM (antecedents, process, and outcomes) in the field of mental health were included.

Findings

The authors included 87 studies that applied 48 measures on distinct SDM constructs. A large majority of them have been developed in the field of physical diseases and adapted or directly applied in the mental health context. The most evaluated construct is the SDM process in consultation, mainly by patients’ self-report but also by external observer measures, followed by the patients’ preferences for involvement in decision making. The most applied instrument was the Autonomy Preference Index, followed by the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The psychometric validation in mental health samples of the instruments identified is scarce.

Research limitations/implications

The bibliographic search is comprehensive, but could not be completely exhaustive. Effort should be invested in the development of new SDM for mental health tools that will reflect the complexity and specific features of mental health care.

Originality/value

The authors highlight several limitations and challenges for the measurement of SDM in mental health care.

Keywords

  • Measurement
  • Patient involvement
  • Mental health
  • Outcomes
  • Shared decision making

Acknowledgements

Conflict of interest: the authors confirm that this paper content has no conflict of interest.

Funding: the authors declare no support from any organization for the submitted work.

Citation

Perestelo-Perez, L., Rivero-Santana, A., Alvarez-Perez, Y., Zisman-Ilani, Y., Kaminskiy, E. and Serrano Aguilar, P. (2017), "Measurement issues of shared decision making in mental health: challenges and opportunities", Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 214-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-01-2017-0004

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here