4<strong>Decision</strong>al Conflict<strong>Decision</strong>al conflict or decisional uncerta<strong>in</strong>ties are terms describ<strong>in</strong>g a person’s difficulty<strong>in</strong> com<strong>in</strong>g to a decision, <strong>in</strong> this case, about treatment. <strong>Decision</strong>al conflict candelay a person from mak<strong>in</strong>g a decision, can create regret and uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty about adecision that is made, and can precipitate a lack of follow-through on a decision thatappears to have been made.In her presentation at the SDM meet<strong>in</strong>g, Patricia Deegan, Ph.D. noted that decisionalconflict is often related to the level of certa<strong>in</strong>ty that is available regard<strong>in</strong>g treatmentoptions. Treatment options that have a strong evidence base and have risen to thelevel of a standard of care—such as antibiotics <strong>in</strong> the case of bacterial <strong>in</strong>fection—rarely cause decisional conflict. However, when the benefits of treatment are not sowell known, or when treatment carries a risk of significant side effects—such as therisk of metabolic dysregulation follow<strong>in</strong>g the use of psychiatric medication—decisionalconflict is more common.Adherence and CoercionAdherence or compliance, <strong>in</strong> this context, refers to the extent to which a consumerfollows a treatment plan. In the context of mental health treatment, the “complianceversus noncompliance dichotomy can serve to re<strong>in</strong>force the power of the physicianand silence people with psychiatric disabilities” (Deegan, 2007, p. 63). Because noncomplianceis often perceived to be symptomatic of the illness, rather than <strong>in</strong>dicativeof consumer preferences or decisional conflict (Deegan, 2007; Perlman et al., Supplement3 to this report), the concept of compliance is related to the concept of coercionwith<strong>in</strong> the mental health system.In Supplement 2 to this report, Holmes-Rovner, Adams, and Ashenden describe coercivetreatment as a barrier to SDM <strong>in</strong> mental health care. Consumers and providersalike are aware of the presence of coercive treatment <strong>in</strong> both <strong>in</strong>patient and outpatientsett<strong>in</strong>gs. While regulations vary from State to State, <strong>in</strong>voluntary outpatientcommitment typically requires patients to take medication and comply with otherelements of treatment or risk be<strong>in</strong>g placed <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>patient psychiatric hospital. Coercivetreatment at <strong>in</strong>patient facilities can <strong>in</strong>clude seclusion, restra<strong>in</strong>t, and forcedmedication. Participants at the SDM meet<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ted out that mere knowledge thatcoercive treatment exists may impact consumers’ sense of their ability to truly participate<strong>in</strong> treatment decisions.“Even <strong>in</strong> a coercive environment, decisions [appropriate for SDM] are madeevery day.” —State hospital worker; SDM meet<strong>in</strong>g participantThe perception that people with serious mental illnesses are not capable of participat<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> decisions about their own treatment is the basis of ethical argumentsaga<strong>in</strong>st SDM (Dudz<strong>in</strong>ski & Sullivan, 2004), is activated <strong>in</strong> orders of <strong>in</strong>voluntary<strong>Shared</strong> <strong>Decision</strong>-<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong>: Practice, Research, and Future Directions
5outpatient commitment (Holmes-Rovner et al., Supplement 3), and was reported byfocus groups of mental health consumers convened through <strong>SAMHSA</strong>’s Elim<strong>in</strong>ationof Barriers Initiative (Schauer et al., 2007). In its report, Improv<strong>in</strong>g the Quality of<strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong> for <strong>Mental</strong> and Substance-Use Conditions, the IOM strongly rebuttedthis belief, stat<strong>in</strong>g that “many people with mental illness, <strong>in</strong>deed, many with severemental illnesses, are not <strong>in</strong>competent on most measures of competency” (IOM,2006, p. 112).“A clear majority of mental health consumers are fully capable of mak<strong>in</strong>gdecisions about their care.” —A. Kathryn Power, CMHS DirectorPerson-centered <strong>Care</strong>Person-centered care describes the effort to ensure that mental health care is centeredon the needs and desires of the consumer. It means that consumers set theirown recovery goals and have choices <strong>in</strong> the services they receive, and they can selecttheir own recovery support team. For mental health providers, person-centered caremeans assist<strong>in</strong>g consumers <strong>in</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g goals that are personally mean<strong>in</strong>gful.Self-directed <strong>Care</strong> and Personal Medic<strong>in</strong>eSelf-directed care, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the rights and responsibilitiesof the consumer to “assess their needs, establish an <strong>in</strong>dividual plan of care,budget funds to meet their needs, choose how and by whom these needs will be met,and monitor the quality of services they receive” (<strong>SAMHSA</strong>, 2005, p. 5). In this case,collaboration by the provider is not explicitly required, although providers are identifiedas sources of <strong>in</strong>formation and services.Deegan (2007) co<strong>in</strong>ed the term “personal medic<strong>in</strong>e” to describe self-taught, nonpharmaceuticalstrategies that persons with mental illnesses use, often <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ationwith psychiatric medication, to advance their recovery and improve their lives.As an example, Deegan shared the story of a man with bipolar disorder who usedmath problems to help himself get to sleep and thus avoid a manic episode. Shenotes, “there seem to be as many types of personal medic<strong>in</strong>e as there are <strong>in</strong>dividuals:fish<strong>in</strong>g, parent<strong>in</strong>g, repair<strong>in</strong>g airplanes, walk<strong>in</strong>g, diet, car<strong>in</strong>g for pets, friendship, driv<strong>in</strong>g.. .” (Deegan, 2007, p. 65).The concepts of self-directed care and personal medic<strong>in</strong>e are important to a considerationof shared decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g because, <strong>in</strong> Deegan’s words, “Personal medic<strong>in</strong>erem<strong>in</strong>ds us that there are many ways to change our body’s biochemistry and that,with<strong>in</strong> the task of recovery, pill medic<strong>in</strong>e must complement and support personalmedic<strong>in</strong>e, or the th<strong>in</strong>gs that give one’s life purpose and mean<strong>in</strong>g” (Deegan, 2007,p. 65).<strong>Shared</strong> <strong>Decision</strong>-<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong>:Practice, Research, and Future Directions
- Page 4: iiContentsIntroduction ............
- Page 13 and 14: 7Advantages• Practitioners can be
- Page 15: 9Section 2The Practice of SharedDec
- Page 22 and 23: 16Section 3SDM ResearchCurrent rese
- Page 24: 18Mental health care providers are
- Page 27 and 28: 21want mental health treatment or d
- Page 29: 23Some participants raised concerns
- Page 37 and 38: 31Section 6ConclusionsShared decisi
- Page 39 and 40: 33Fellowes, D., Wilkinson, S., & Mo
- Page 41 and 42: 35Power, A. Kathryn. (July 10, 2007
- Page 43 and 44: 37Appendix AResourcesThis list is p
- Page 45 and 46: 39Appendix BShared Decision-MakingM
- Page 47 and 48: 41Annelle Primm, M.D., M.P.H.Direct
- Page 49 and 50: 43Supplement 1Shared Decision-Makin
- Page 51 and 52: 45IntroductionThe consumer-driven r
- Page 53 and 54: 47Background: Definitions of SDM an
- Page 55 and 56:
49• Freedom to live in the commun
- Page 57 and 58:
51providers only (Wills & Homes-Rov
- Page 59:
53SDM for Schizophrenia TreatmentBu
- Page 63 and 64:
57I interact with my consumers; I f
- Page 65 and 66:
59ReferencesAdams, J. R., & Drake,
- Page 67 and 68:
61Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Kinnersle
- Page 69 and 70:
63Murray, E., Pollack, L., White, M
- Page 71 and 72:
65Thistlethwaite, J., Evans, R., Ti
- Page 73 and 74:
67AbstractShared decision-making is
- Page 75 and 76:
69Confronting Critical Challenges:
- Page 77 and 78:
71into treatment should still be in
- Page 79 and 80:
73these approaches, people are more
- Page 81 and 82:
75consumers to engage with their pr
- Page 83 and 84:
77that were produced in the U.S., w
- Page 85 and 86:
79a healing partnership and develop
- Page 87 and 88:
81Shared Decision-Making in Mental
- Page 89 and 90:
83However, peer support requires st
- Page 91 and 92:
85ConclusionsImplementation of SDM
- Page 93 and 94:
87Fellowes, D., Wilkinson, S., & Mo
- Page 95 and 96:
89President’s Commission for the
- Page 97 and 98:
91Supplement 3Aids to Assist Shared
- Page 99 and 100:
93IntroductionSignificance of Share
- Page 101 and 102:
95In recent years, a variety of tec
- Page 103 and 104:
97• Provide balanced information,
- Page 105 and 106:
99Form of Access or AdministrationC
- Page 107 and 108:
101ences). Some of these Web-based
- Page 109 and 110:
103video about shared decision-maki
- Page 111 and 112:
105clarify one’s own values and p
- Page 113 and 114:
107potential results, than on quant
- Page 115 and 116:
109Once again, however, it is worth
- Page 117 and 118:
111who belong to minority groups or
- Page 119 and 120:
113Hamann, J., Langer, B., Winkler,
- Page 122:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN