Use of a Web-Based Shared Decision-Making Program: Impact on Ongoing Treatment Engagement and Antipsychotic Adherence
Abstract
Objective:
The authors examined the impact of a Web-based shared decision-making application, MyCHOIS–CommonGround, on ongoing outpatient mental health treatment engagement (all users) and antipsychotic medication adherence (users with schizophrenia).
Methods:
An intervention study was conducted by comparing Medicaid-enrolled MyCHOIS–CommonGround users in 12 participating mental health clinics (N=472) with propensity score–matched adults receiving services in nonparticipating clinics (N=944). Medicaid claims were used to assess ongoing treatment engagement and antipsychotic adherence (among individuals with schizophrenia) one year prior to and after entry into the cohort. Multilevel linear models were conducted to estimate the effects of the MyCHOIS–CommonGround program over time.
Results:
No differences during the baseline year were found between the MyCHOIS–CommonGround group and the matched control group on demographic, diagnostic, or service use characteristics. At one-year follow-up, engagement in outpatient mental health services was significantly higher for MyCHOIS–CommonGround users than for the control group (months with a service, 8.54±.22 versus 6.95±.15; β=1.40, p<.001). Among individuals with schizophrenia, antipsychotic medication adherence was also higher during the follow-up year among MyCHOIS–CommonGround users compared with the control group (proportion of days covered by medication, .78±.04 versus .69±.03; β=.06, p<.01).
Conclusions:
These findings provide new evidence that shared decision-making tools may promote ongoing mental health treatment engagement for individuals with serious mental illness and improved antipsychotic medication adherence for those with schizophrenia.
The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a call to action to improve treatment adherence, stating that “poor adherence to treatment of chronic disease is a worldwide problem of striking magnitude” (1). In the mental health field, effective psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for serious mental illness underpin the importance of ongoing treatment engagement. The therapeutic benefit of mental health services and pharmacotherapies depends on clients accessing and engaging in treatment. Unfortunately, approximately 15%−32% of clients receiving outpatient mental health care end treatment prematurely (2,3). Nonattendance at psychiatric appointments and low frequency of mental health visits have been associated with poor outcomes, including increased hospitalization (4–6). Similarly, nonadherence to psychotropic medications limits the effectiveness of pharmacological management across a number of mental health conditions (7–9). For individuals with schizophrenia, in which long-term antipsychotic maintenance is recommended (10), low adherence has been associated with poor prognosis, hospitalization, and suicide (8,11,12). According to the WHO, adherence may be attributable to multiple factors, including treatment environments that take the client’s values and preferences into account (1).
Shared decision making has been identified as a promising approach for encouraging treatment engagement among individuals with serious mental illness (3,5,13–15). Shared decision making is a model of patient-provider communication designed to marry the evidence on treatment options with the values and preferences of clients and families. Although varying definitions have emerged, the most commonly cited criteria require the active participation of the individual and the clinician in information sharing, leading to a treatment decision made and agreed upon by both parties (16). Historically, shared decision making was promoted on ethical grounds. The 1982 President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine called for medical professionals to engage in “shared decision-making based on mutual respect and participation” (17). Although ethical considerations are sufficient, the promise of shared decision making is that it will also lead to ongoing engagement in treatment and thereby improve clinical outcomes (5,15).
Recent systematic reviews indicate that little is known about the impact of shared decision making on sustained engagement in mental health services—for example, missed appointments or dropout rates—and studies examining the impact of shared decision making on psychotropic medication adherence have had mixed results (18–22). A pilot study of treatment continuation found that veterans randomly assigned to receive a 30-minute shared decision-making session prior to initiating therapy were more likely to complete a course of psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (23). Similarly, a randomized controlled study of depression in primary care found that shared decision making increased adherence to the treatment plan among individuals receiving medication management (22,24,25). However, three investigations of psychotropic adherence have not found a relationship between shared decision making and adherence (26–29).
Two large, well-controlled studies that included shared decision making as one component of a multifaceted intervention reported successful gains in treatment continuation and psychotropic medication adherence (30,31). The Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode Connection Program has been associated with longer retention in treatment and increased antipsychotic medication adherence (31). A primary care–based depression prevention trial that used shared decision making and other interventions yielded increased adherence to antidepressant medication (30). However, the contribution of shared decision making relative to that of other components of these multifaceted interventions was unclear. More studies are needed to understand the relationship between shared decision making and ongoing mental health treatment engagement.
CommonGround is one of the most widely implemented shared decision-making programs in mental health settings (13,32–38). Developed by Pat Deegan & Associates, this Web-based tool guides clients through a questionnaire that results in a shared decision-making report summarizing the individual’s treatment concerns, goals, wellness strategies, and outcomes, which creates a foundation for shared decision-making discussions between the individual and his or her physician (32). To date, no studies have examined the impact of CommonGround on ongoing engagement in mental health services, and only one study has looked at medication adherence. Stein and colleagues (29) examined psychotropic medication adherence in the six months after initial use of CommonGround and did not find any impact.
In this study, we examined the impact of the use of CommonGround on ongoing outpatient mental health treatment engagement. Medicaid-enrolled users in 12 clinics were compared with a propensity score–matched control group to examine continuing engagement in outpatient services in the year following first use of the CommonGround shared decision-making program. In addition, for the subset of individuals with schizophrenia, for which long-term management with antipsychotic medication is recommended, we examined the relationship between shared decision making and antipsychotic medication adherence.
Methods
Web-Based Shared Decision-Making Tool
My Collaborative Health Outcomes Information System (MyCHOIS) is the client-facing component of the Psychiatric Services and Clinical Knowledge Enhancement System (PSYCKES), a Web-based platform for supporting clinical decision making and quality improvement developed by the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) (39). CommonGround, developed by Pat Deegan & Associates, is one tool among several instruments available to clients in MyCHOIS. In this report, “MyCHOIS–CommonGround users” refers to clients who used MyCHOIS to complete a CommonGround shared decision-making report.
CommonGround shared decision-making reports are completed by clients prior to their medication appointments. The reports summarize their perspective on symptoms, functioning, treatment progress, and concerns. Peer staff assist clients as needed in using the CommonGround program, including creating accounts, logging in, entering data, and printing and reviewing shared decision-making reports (32,40). During the appointment, the client and practitioner review the report and work together to develop a shared decision.
MyCHOIS–CommonGround was implemented in 12 Medicaid mental health outpatient clinics in New York State (go-live dates ranged from February 2011 to March 2014).
Data Sources
MyCHOIS–CommonGround user logs were extracted to identify users and dates of use. Client demographic characteristics, diagnoses, Medicaid eligibility, inpatient and outpatient mental health service use, and prescriptions were extracted from the New York State OMH Medicaid data warehouse. The study was approved with a waiver of informed consent by the New York State OMH Institutional Review Board.
Study Sample
MyCHOIS–CommonGround user group.
All Medicaid-enrolled adults served at one of the 12 MyCHOIS–CommonGround clinics between February 1, 2011 (go-live month for the first clinic that implemented MyCHOIS–CommonGround), to March 1, 2014 (N=2,632), who completed a shared decision-making report during that period (N=1,100) were included in the initial sample. For each user, the first completed report was the index date. Individuals with incomplete Medicaid data were excluded from the sample, including those without continuous Medicaid eligibility for the year before and after their index date (N=212), those with dual Medicare coverage (N=389), and those with no psychiatric diagnosis (N=27). The final sample consisted of 472 MyCHOIS–CommonGround users. [A flow diagram in an online supplement shows the recruitment process.] The sample members were of low socioeconomic status because of Medicaid inclusion criteria.
Control group.
A simple random sample (N=220,000) of adult Medicaid enrollees receiving a mental health clinic service between February 1, 2011, and March 1, 2014 (excluding those served at MyCHOIS clinics) was extracted from the OMH Medicaid database. After excluding individuals with incomplete Medicaid data (that is, those also covered by Medicare and those without continuous Medicaid enrollment in the year before and after the index date), a 2:1 propensity score–match algorithm (41,42) was used to construct a control group (N=944) matched with MyCHOIS–CommonGround users on baseline characteristics, including demographic characteristics (age, gender, race-ethnicity, and geographic region); index date; clinical characteristics (primary psychiatric diagnosis and any substance use disorder diagnosis); and mental health service use in the year prior to the index date, including mental health treatment engagement (number of months with any outpatient specialty mental health service), use of psychiatric rehabilitation services, and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization (community hospital and state psychiatric center). For all MyCHOIS–CommonGround users, the propensity score–match algorithm identified two individuals with the closest propensity score (log-odds score) on the basis of all baseline characteristics. The propensity score match used a “greedy” algorithm that looked for the best and second-best match by using the nearest-available-neighbor method (41).
Definitions and Measures
Index date was defined as the date of the first completed shared decision-making report for the CommonGround users group. For the control group, the index date was the date of a mental health clinic service and was determined as part of the propensity score match to ensure that the control and CommonGround groups had similar index dates. The baseline time period was one year (365 days) prior to the index date. The follow-up time period was the year following the index date. Age was determined as of the index date. Region (based on the client’s address) was categorized as New York City, western New York, central New York, and other. Primary diagnosis was determined by the preponderance method (43). Clients were assigned the most frequent primary diagnosis associated with the ten services most proximal to their index date. In the event of a tie, clients were assigned the diagnosis associated with the highest level of service.
Ongoing engagement in outpatient specialty mental health service was adapted from methods used by Dixon and colleagues (44), by using months with a mental health service as a measure of continued treatment engagement. We calculated the number of months during the year of observation in which the client received one or more routine (nonemergency) specialty mental health outpatient services from any Medicaid provider in New York State, including mental health clinic, outpatient psychiatric rehabilitation, and assertive community treatment. Outpatient crisis or emergency services were excluded.
The proportion of days covered (PDC) with antipsychotic medications among individuals with schizophrenia (ICD-9 codes 295–295.99) was used to examine medication adherence in the year prior to and the year following the index date (45). We restricted the examination of medication adherence to antipsychotic medications for individuals with schizophrenia because it was the largest diagnostic category in the cohort and because long-term or lifelong use of antipsychotic medications is the cornerstone of pharmacological management (10). Using an approach adapted from Nau (45), PDC was calculated as the total number of days that antipsychotic medication was available to the individual (the number of days’ supply of prescriptions filled) divided by the total number of days in the community (365 minus any days hospitalized) during the year of observation. For two prescriptions filled on the same day, the prescription with the greater days’ supply was used. For prescriptions filled on different days, overlapping days were summed.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests (for categorical variables), and t tests (for continuous variables) were used to characterize cohorts and to test for differences between the MyCHOIS–CommonGround and control groups at baseline. Multilevel linear models were used to examine interactions between groups over time and to account for lack of independence between baseline and follow-up assessments (same individuals assessed at two time periods). Specifically, PROC MIXED models examined the association between MyCHOIS–CommonGround use and time period (baseline [0] to follow-up [1]) on ongoing outpatient treatment engagement and antipsychotic medication adherence. Any observed statistical differences between groups at baseline were adjusted for in the model. All analyses were conducted with SAS, version 9.4.
Results
No significant differences were found between the MyCHOIS–CommonGround group and the propensity score–matched control group on any baseline variables (Table 1). Schizophrenia was the most prevalent diagnosis (40%), and approximately a third had a primary or comorbid substance use disorder. Approximately 15% had a psychiatric hospitalization in the previous year. For the subcohort with schizophrenia (results not shown), no significant differences were found between groups on any baseline characteristics, with the exception of region (for the New York City region, 65% MyCHOIS versus 70% control group, p=.01).
| MyCHOIS– CommonGround users (N=472) | Control group (N=944) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | p |
| Female | 264 | 56 | 530 | 56 | .94 |
| Age (M±SD) | 43.8±12.3 | 44±12.3 | .72 | ||
| Race-ethnicity | .95 | ||||
| White | 179 | 38 | 370 | 39 | |
| Asian | 7 | 2 | 18 | 2 | |
| Black | 161 | 34 | 315 | 33 | |
| Hispanic | 84 | 18 | 158 | 17 | |
| Unknown or other | 41 | 9 | 83 | 9 | |
| Region | .94 | ||||
| New York City | 300 | 64 | 590 | 63 | |
| Central New York | 133 | 28 | 280 | 30 | |
| Western New York | 35 | 7 | 67 | 7 | |
| Other | 4 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |
| Primary psychiatric diagnosis | .99 | ||||
| Anxiety disorder | 24 | 5 | 39 | 4 | |
| Bipolar or related disorder | 51 | 11 | 111 | 12 | |
| Depressive disorder | 101 | 21 | 202 | 21 | |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder | 14 | 3 | 27 | 3 | |
| Schizophrenia spectrum disorder | 189 | 40 | 375 | 40 | |
| Sleep-wake disorder | 12 | 3 | 30 | 3 | |
| Substance-related or addictive disorder | 54 | 11 | 99 | 11 | |
| Trauma- or stressor-related disorder | 13 | 3 | 30 | 3 | |
| Other | 14 | 3 | 31 | 3 | |
| Any substance use disorder | 158 | 34 | 281 | 30 | .16 |
| Mental health service use in previous year | |||||
| Months with ≥1 outpatient mental health service visits (M±SD) | 8.0±4.6 | 7.8±4.1 | .72 | ||
| ≥1 psychiatric hospitalizations | 69 | 15 | 135 | 14 | .87 |
a
The control group was matched on all variables listed in the table. Matched characteristics not listed included use of psychiatric rehabilitation services and a state inpatient service in the baseline year.
Figure 1 presents the least-squares means and standard errors from the multilevel model for engagement in services and antipsychotic adherence at baseline and follow-up for the MyCHOIS–CommonGround and control groups. At baseline, no between-group differences were noted in engagement in outpatient mental health services. Similarly, for the subset of individuals with schizophrenia, no between-group differences in antipsychotic medication adherence were noted. However, during the follow-up year, the MyCHOIS–CommonGround users had a higher level of ongoing engagement in outpatient mental health service compared with the control group (months with use of a service, 8.54 versus 6.95; p<.001). At one-year follow-up, within-group comparisons indicated a significant increase in ongoing engagement for the MyCHOIS–CommonGround users group and a significant decrease in engagement for the control group. Similarly, for the subset of users with schizophrenia, no differences in antipsychotic medication adherence were found between the groups at baseline, but the MyCHOIS–CommonGround group was significantly more adherent during the follow-up year compared with the control group (PDC, .78 versus .69; p=.01). Within-group comparisons indicated a significant increase in antipsychotic adherence for the MyCHOIS–CommonGround group, whereas no change was noted for the control group.
FIGURE 1. Ongoing engagement in services and antipsychotic adherence at baseline and one-year among MyCHOIS–CommonGround users and a matched control groupa
aEngagement was measured as ≥1 visits to outpatient specialty mental health services. Antipsychotic adherence was measured among individuals with schizophrenia as the proportion of days covered (PDC) by an antipsychotic. Results are the least-squares means and standard errors from the multilevel models for each outcome.
bSignificant increase from baseline to follow-up, p<.001
cSignificant difference between groups at follow-up, p<.001
dSignificant decrease from baseline to follow-up, p<.001
eSignificant increase from baseline to follow-up, p<.01
fSignificant difference between groups at follow-up, p<.01
Table 2 presents results of the multilevel linear models estimating the association between MyCHOIS–CommonGround use and ongoing engagement in specialty mental health services and—for the subset of individuals with schizophrenia—the PDC by one or more antipsychotic medications. Consistent with findings shown in Figure 1, multilevel linear models identified statistically significant interactions between groups over time for both ongoing outpatient mental health treatment engagement (β=1.40, p<.001) and antipsychotic adherence (β=.06, p<.01).
| Measure and effect | Estimate (β) | SE | t | df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mental health treatment engagementa | |||||
| Intercept | 7.8 | .14 | 56.46 | 1,414 | <.001 |
| MyCHOIS–CommonGround vs. control | .19 | .24 | .79 | 1,414 | .429 |
| Time: follow-up vs. baseline | –.90 | .11 | –8.27 | 1,414 | <.001 |
| Interaction MyCHOIS–CommonGround × time | 1.40 | .19 | 7.46 | 1,414 | <.001 |
| Antipsychotic adherence (PDC)b | |||||
| Intercept | .72 | .05 | 14.12 | 570 | <.001 |
| MyCHOIS–CommonGround vs. control | .02 | .03 | .70 | 561 | .48 |
| Time: follow-up vs. baseline | –.02 | .01 | –1.58 | 562 | .11 |
| Interaction MyCHOIS–CommonGround × time | .06 | .02 | 2.98 | 562 | <.01 |
a
N of months with ≥1 outpatient specialty mental health service visits in the follow-up year
b
PDC, proportion of days covered by an antipsychotic in the follow-up year for individuals with schizophrenia
Discussion
To our knowledge, this study is the first to report an association between shared decision making and ongoing service engagement or medication adherence for individuals with serious mental illness. This propensity score–matched intervention study found that individuals who used MyCHOIS–CommonGround, a peer-supported and Web-based shared decision-making program, were significantly more engaged in outpatient mental health services during the following year, compared with a control group (that is, they used a mental health outpatient service 1.6 more months per year). In addition, the subgroup of MyCHOIS–CommonGround users with schizophrenia had significantly higher antipsychotic medication adherence during the follow-up year (9% more days with medication). These findings contribute to our nascent understanding of the impact of shared decision making in mental health—and specifically of the impact of the CommonGround program.
This study builds on previous evaluations of the impact of shared decision making in health services and lends support to the idea that shared decision making can improve outcomes through increased patient engagement in ongoing treatment. A randomized controlled study in primary care in Germany found that shared decision making increased adherence to depression treatment (22,24,25). Investigation of the causal relationships between shared decision making and depression outcomes in primary care indicated that client participation in treatment decisions improved clinical outcomes through increased treatment adherence.
This study supports these findings and extends them to ongoing engagement in specialty mental health services among individuals with serious mental illness and builds on previous evaluations of the impact of CommonGround. Two groups of investigators found that CommonGround use was associated with improvement in client-reported outcomes, including psychiatric symptoms, health functioning, and recovery progress (46,47). The study reported here suggests that these improved outcomes among CommonGround users may have been due in part to increased treatment engagement.
It is important to establish the benefit of shared decision making beyond the ethical considerations upon which it was founded, in part to inform implementation decisions (17). Implementation of shared decision-making programs, such as CommonGround, can be challenging and requires leadership and staff commitment and upfront and ongoing resources (48,49). However, payers, with rare exception, have not reimbursed mental health service providers for shared decision-making programs (34). In previous work, we found that lack of reimbursement for CommonGround served as a significant barrier to adoption and sustainment of the program. Programs such as CommonGround that require dedicated peer support staff and equipment would benefit from additional evidence of impact, including the relationship between program fidelity and impact, as well as economic evaluations to inform implementation decisions by payers, policy makers, and providers (50).
In contrast to the dearth of studies on engagement and shared decision making, four prior studies have examined shared decision making and psychotropic medication adherence; however, most did not find a significant relationship (26–29). In this study, we focused specifically on antipsychotic adherence in schizophrenia, where the ongoing use of an antipsychotic is clinically indicated (10,51) and where antipsychotic adherence, rather than psychotropic use in general, is associated with improved outcomes (52). This study also benefited from a large intervention sample from 12 sites, use of a propensity score–matched control group selected from a random statewide sample, and a 12-month period of observation during which there was an ongoing opportunity to participate in shared decision making. However, given mixed results in the literature and the limitations of this study, further research is warranted.
This study had several limitations. First, propensity-score matching controls for a large number of baseline characteristics; however, it cannot control for unmeasured attributes that may be confounders. Second, our measures of medication adherence, shared decision making, and ongoing engagement in treatment were objective but indirect. Medicaid prescription fills were used to assess antipsychotic medication adherence, but it was unknown whether the client took the medication as prescribed or received medications that were paid for out of pocket or through other non-Medicaid sources. MyCHOIS–CommonGround user logs were used to assess whether a shared decision-making report was completed, but the quality of the encounter between the client and the prescriber was not examined. Similarly, ongoing engagement in specialty mental health care was assessed by using Medicaid administrative data, and information pertaining to missed appointments or appropriate termination of treatment was lacking. Third, ongoing contact with a service provider is only one component of engagement in treatment services, and impacts of CommonGround on other important aspects of engagement, including completion of a course of treatment (23), adherence to the treatment plan (24,25), and patient activation and related constructs, are areas for future study (53). In addition, potential impact of the program on nonusers—for example, as a result of changes in staff approach—was not examined. Finally, findings may not be generalizable to other populations or settings. For example, this study examined Medicaid-enrolled individuals who were not dually eligible for Medicare and who were receiving services in mental health clinics. Future study is needed to examine the impact of CommonGround on engagement among individuals with poor service engagement, in other treatment settings, and with other insurance types.
Conclusions
This study, the first to examine the impact of shared decision making on ongoing engagement in mental health treatment among individuals with serious mental illness, found a modest but significant improvement in outpatient treatment engagement and, for the subset of individuals with schizophrenia, an increase in antipsychotic adherence. Shared decision making is a promising approach to enhancing patient-centered care, improving the use of services, and ultimately improving outcomes of care.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Elizabeth Austin, M.A., for managing initial implementation of MyCHOIS–CommonGround and Jeremy Herring, M.A., for implementation and application support.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201800130.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 43.44 KB
References
1.
Sabaté E (ed): Adherence to Long-Term Therapies: Evidence for Action. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003
2.
Olfson M, Mojtabai R, Sampson NA, et al: Dropout from outpatient mental health care in the United States. Psychiatric Services 60:898–907, 2009
3.
Kreyenbuhl J, Nossel IR, Dixon LB: Disengagement from mental health treatment among individuals with schizophrenia and strategies for facilitating connections to care: a review of the literature. Schizophrenia Bulletin 35:696–703, 2009
4.
McQuade J, Gromova E: An examination of treatment outcomes at state licensed mental health clinics. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 45:177–183, 2015
5.
Dixon LB, Holoshitz Y, Nossel I: Treatment engagement of individuals experiencing mental illness: review and update. World Psychiatry 15:13–20, 2016
6.
Killaspy H, Banerjee S, King M, et al: Prospective controlled study of psychiatric out-patient non-attendance: characteristics and outcome. British Journal of Psychiatry 176:160–165, 2000
7.
Melartin TK, Rytsälä HJ, Leskelä US, et al: Continuity is the main challenge in treating major depressive disorder in psychiatric care. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 66:220–227, 2005
8.
Higashi K, Medic G, Littlewood KJ, et al: Medication adherence in schizophrenia: factors influencing adherence and consequences of nonadherence, a systematic literature review. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 3:200–218, 2013
9.
Lage MJ, Hassan MK: The relationship between antipsychotic medication adherence and patient outcomes among individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder: a retrospective study. Annals of General Psychiatry 8:7, 2009
10.
Lehman A, Lieberman J, Dixon LB, et al: Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia, 2nd ed. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2010. https://psychiatryonline.org/pb/assets/raw/sitewide/practice_guidelines/guidelines/schizophrenia.pdf
11.
Gilmer TP, Dolder CR, Lacro JP, et al: Adherence to treatment with antipsychotic medication and health care costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 161:692–699, 2004
12.
Weiden PJ, Kozma C, Grogg A, et al: Partial compliance and risk of rehospitalization among California Medicaid patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services 55:886–891, 2004
13.
Deegan PE: The lived experience of using psychiatric medication in the recovery process and a shared decision-making program to support it. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 31:62–69, 2007
14.
Swift JK, Greenberg RP, Tompkins KA, et al: Treatment refusal and premature termination in psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and their combination: a meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons. Psychotherapy 54:47–57, 2017
15.
Drake RE, Deegan PE, Rapp C: The promise of shared decision making in mental health. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 34:7–13, 2010
16.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 44:681–692, 1997
17.
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Making Health Care Decisions: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1982
18.
Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, et al: Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 77:219–226, 2008
19.
Shay LA, Lafata JE: Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Medical Decision Making 35:114–131, 2015
20.
Clayman ML, Bylund CL, Chewning B, et al: The impact of patient participation in health decisions within medical encounters: a systematic review. Medical Decision Making 36:427–452, 2016
21.
Hauser K, Koerfer A, Kuhr K, et al: Outcome-relevant effects of shared decision making. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 112:665–671, 2015
22.
Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S: Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1:CD007297, 2010
23.
Mott JM, Stanley MA, Street RL Jr, et al: Increasing engagement in evidence-based PTSD treatment through shared decision-making: a pilot study. Military Medicine 179:143–149, 2014
24.
Loh A, Leonhart R, Wills CE, et al: The impact of patient participation on adherence and clinical outcome in primary care of depression. Patient Education and Counseling 65:69–78, 2007
25.
Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, et al: The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Education and Counseling 67:324–332, 2007
26.
Hamann J, Langer B, Winkler V, et al: Shared decision making for in-patients with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 114:265–273, 2006
27.
Hamann J, Cohen R, Leucht S, et al: Shared decision making and long-term outcome in schizophrenia treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 68:992–997, 2007
28.
Mahone IH: Shared decision making and serious mental illness. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 22:334–343, 2008
29.
Stein BD, Kogan JN, Mihalyo MJ, et al: Use of a computerized medication shared decision making tool in community mental health settings: impact on psychotropic medication adherence. Community Mental Health Journal 49:185–192, 2013
30.
Ludman E, Katon W, Bush T, et al: Behavioural factors associated with symptom outcomes in a primary care-based depression prevention intervention trial. Psychological Medicine 33:1061–1070, 2003
31.
Kane JM, Robinson DG, Schooler NR, et al: Comprehensive versus usual community care for first-episode psychosis: 2-year outcomes from the NIMH RAISE early treatment program. American Journal of Psychiatry 173:362–372, 2016
32.
Deegan PE: A web application to support recovery and shared decision making in psychiatric medication clinics. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 34:23–28, 2010
33.
Deegan PE, Rapp C, Holter M, et al: A program to support shared decision making in an outpatient psychiatric medication clinic. Psychiatric Services 59:603–605, 2008
34.
Amplifying the voices of individuals who use mental health services: a commitment to shared decision making. Psychiatric Services 64:e7–e9, 2013
35.
Deegan PE, Carpenter-Song E, Drake RE, et al: Enhancing clients’ communication regarding goals for using psychiatric medications. Psychiatric Services 68:771–775, 2017
36.
How CommonGround Is Used. Byfield, MA, PDA, 2018. https://www.patdeegan.com/commonground/uses
37.
Yamaguchi S, Taneda A, Matsunaga A, et al: Efficacy of a peer-led, recovery-oriented shared decision-making system: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Psychiatric Services 68:1307–1311, 2017
38.
Korsbek L, Tønder ES: Momentum: a smartphone application to support shared decision making for people using mental health services. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 39:167–172, 2016
39.
About Psychiatric Services and Clinical Knowledge Enhancement System (PSYCKES). Albany, New York State Office of Mental Health, 2017. https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/psyckes_medicaid/about/
40.
Austin E, Ramakrishnan A, Hopper K: Embodying recovery: a qualitative study of peer work in a consumer-run service setting. Community Mental Health Journal 50:879–885, 2014
41.
Parsons LS: Performing a 1:N case-control match on propensity score (paper 165-29); in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Cary, NC, SAS Institute, 2004. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/165-29.pdf
42.
Austin PC: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 46:399–424, 2011
43.
Stein BD, Pangilinan M, Sorbero MJ, et al: Using claims data to generate clinical flags predicting short-term risk of continued psychiatric hospitalizations. Psychiatric Services 65:1341–1346, 2014
44.
Dixon L, Goldberg R, Iannone V, et al: Use of a critical time intervention to promote continuity of care after psychiatric inpatient hospitalization. Psychiatric Services 60:451–458, 2009
45.
Nau DP: Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) as a Preferred Method of Measuring Medication Adherence. Alexandria, VA, Pharmacy Quality Alliance, 2006. http://www.pqaalliance.org/images/uploads/files/PQA%20PDC%20vs%20%20MPR.pdf
46.
MacDonald-Wilson KL, Deegan PE, Hutchison SL, et al: Integrating personal medicine into service delivery: empowering people in recovery. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 36:258–263, 2013
47.
Salyers MP, Fukui S, Bonfils KA, et al: Consumer outcomes after implementing CommonGround as an approach to shared decision making. Psychiatric Services 68:299–302, 2017
48.
Bonfils KA, Dreison KC, Luther L, et al: Implementing CommonGround in a community mental health center: lessons in a computerized decision support system. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal (Epub ahead of print, Oct 10, 2016)
49.
MacDonald-Wilson KL, Hutchison SL, Karpov I, et al: A successful implementation strategy to support adoption of decision making in mental health services. Community Mental Health Journal 53:251–256, 2017
50.
Haddix AC, Teutsch SM, Corso PS, et al: Prevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2003
51.
HEDIS 2016. Washington, DC, National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2015. http://www.ncqa.org/HEDISQualityMeasurement/HEDISMeasures/HEDIS2016.aspx
52.
Goff DC, Falkai P, Fleischhacker WW, et al: The long-term effects of antipsychotic medication on clinical course in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 174:840–849, 2017
53.
Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, et al: Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs 32:223–231, 2013
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Pine Tree, by Paul Klee, 1932. Oil on canvas. Private collection. © HIP/Art Resource, New York City.
History
Received: 16 March 2018
Revision received: 16 July 2018
Accepted: 17 August 2018
Published online: 5 October 2018
Published in print: December 01, 2018
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Ng-Mak and Dr. Rajagopalan are employed by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Grant funding from Sunovion included salary support for Ms. Bermeo. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
New York Office of Mental Health:
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc.:
This study was funded by NYSOMH and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).