Attitudes towards shared decision making in mental health: a qualitative synthesis

Abstract

Purpose

Shared decision making (SDM) prioritises joint deliberation between practitioner and service user, and a respect for service-users’ experiential knowledge, values and preferences. The purpose of this paper is to review the existing literature pertaining to key stakeholders’ attitudes towards SDM in mental health. It examines whether perceived barriers and facilitators differ by group (e.g. service user, psychiatrist, nurse and social worker) and includes views of what facilitates and hinders the process for service users and practitioners.

Design/methodology/approach

This review adopts the principles of a qualitative research synthesis. A key word search of research published between 1990 and 2016 was undertaken. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included.

Findings

In total, 43 papers were included and several themes identified for service user and practitioner perspectives. Both practitioners and service users see SDM as an ethical imperative, and both groups highlight the need to be flexible in implementing SDM, suggesting it is context dependent. A range of challenges and barriers are presented by both practitioners and service users reflecting complex contextual and cultural features within which interactions in mental health take place. There were qualitative differences in what service users and practitioners describe as preventing or enabling SDM. The differences highlighted point towards different challenges and priorities in SDM for service users and practitioners.

Originality/value

The presentation of nuanced views and attitudes that practitioners and service users hold represent an important and under reported area and offer insight into the reasons for the gap between idealised policy and actual practice of SDM in mental health settings.

Citation

Kaminskiy, E., Senner, S. and Hamann, J. (2017), "Attitudes towards shared decision making in mental health: a qualitative synthesis", Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-01-2017-0003