Evaluating the feasibility of a decision aid to promote shared decision making among young adults with first-episode psychosis: protocol for a pilot study

Yaara Zisman-Ilani, Irene Hurford, Andrea Bowen, Mark Salzer, Elizabeth C Thomas, Yaara Zisman-Ilani, Irene Hurford, Andrea Bowen, Mark Salzer, Elizabeth C Thomas

Abstract

Background: Young adults ages 18 to 25 with first episode psychosis (FEP) have an increased risk of discontinuation antipsychotic medications and psychiatric service disengagement that lead to symptom exacerbation and deterioration. We seek to (1) examine the feasibility, usability, and potential impact of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid (DA) on decision-making, adherence to the decision made, and service engagement among young adults with FEP and (2) understand the role of additional patient-level factors on SDM.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial is being conducted in a coordinated specialty care community program for FEP in an urban setting. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to receive an intervention, the Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid, or treatment as usual. Patients receive their assigned intervention before their medication appointment with the psychiatrist and complete four interviews: before the appointment (T0), after the appointment (T1), and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups (T2 and T3). The study staff and participating psychiatrists are not blinded to the intervention. The data are de-identified to maintain blinding during the analysis process. The primary aims are feasibility of intervention delivery and research procedures and preliminary impact of the intervention on SDM-related outcomes, medication adherence, and service engagement. As a secondary aim, we will explore the contribution of personality and motivation variables, clinical relationships, cognitive functioning, and mental-health-related stigma to SDM. If the sample size permits, we plan to conduct parametric tests such as independent-samples t tests at T1 to compare differences in SDM, adherence, and engagement scales. In the case of a small sample size, we will use non-parametric tests and descriptive statistics.

Discussion: This protocol outlines the methodology for a feasibility pilot comparing the effect of a novel SDM Antipsychotic Medication encounter DA with treatment as usual on SDM, medication adherence, and service engagement in FEP care. SDM is endorsed as a framework for use in FEP and antipsychotic pharmacotherapy, but its impact on adherence and health outcomes is unclear. Understanding the potential contribution of an SDM Antipsychotic Medication DA compared with usual care in psychosis pharmacotherapy is critical. The study will help answer several key questions new to SDM research, including the contribution of personality and clinical relationships to SDM in mental health and psychosis in particular. The study will serve to gather feasibility data to inform future studies and scale-up.

Trial registration: Ethics approval was obtained through Temple University's institutional review board (IRB) and the City of Philadelphia's Department of Public Health IRB. The study has been retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04373590 on 29 April 2020. https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04373590?term=NCT04373590&draw=2&rank=1.

Keywords: Decision aid; Emerging adults; First Episode Psychosis; Psychosis; Schizophrenia; Shared decision making.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of study intervention and assessments
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials flow diagram estimating patient screening, enrollment, and response rate. DA, decision aid; TAU, treatment as usual; T0, pre-appointment; T1, post-appointment; T2, 3-month follow-up; T3, 6-month follow-up

References

    1. Kuipers E, Yesufu-Udechuku A, Taylor C, Kendall T. Management of psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2014:348. 10.1136/bmj.g1173.
    1. Moreno-Küstner B, Martin C, Pastor L. Prevalence of psychotic disorders and its association with methodological issues. A systematic review and meta-analyses. PloS one. 2018;13(4):e0195687. .
    1. Ruhrmann S, Schultze-Lutter F, Salokangas RKR, et al. Prediction of psychosis in adolescents and young adults at high risk: results from the prospective European prediction of psychosis study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(3):241–251.
    1. Yung AR. Treatment of people at ultra-high risk for psychosis. World Psychiatr. 2017;16(2):207–208.
    1. Keating D, McWilliams S, Schneider I, et al. Pharmacological guidelines for schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparison of recommendations for the first episode. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1). 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013881.
    1. Goff DC, Falkai P, Fleischhacker WW, Girgis RR, Kahn RM, Uchida H, Lieberman JA. The long-term effects of antipsychotic medication on clinical course in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(9):840-9. .
    1. Whale R, Harris M, Kavanagh G, et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotics used in first-episode psychosis: a naturalistic cohort study. BJPsych Open. 2016;2(5):323–329.
    1. Kane JM, Kishimoto T, Correll CU. Non-adherence to medication in patients with psychotic disorders: epidemiology, contributing factors and management strategies. World Psychiatry. 2013;12(3):216–226.
    1. Velligan D, Sajatovic M. Practical strategies for improving adherence to medication and outcomes. World Psychiatry. 2013;12(3):233–234.
    1. Haddad P, Brain C, Scott J. Nonadherence with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia: challenges and management strategies. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2014;5:43.
    1. Kane J. The pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia: how far have we come. Schizophr Bull. 2017;43:S67.
    1. Bulloch AGM, Patten SB. Non-adherence with psychotropic medications in the general population. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2010;45(1):47–56.
    1. Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S. Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD007297. 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub2.
    1. Ramon S, Zisman-Ilani Y, Kaminskiy E. Guest editorial. Ment Heal Rev J. 2017;22(3). 10.1108/MHRJ-01-2017-0008.
    1. Morant N, Kaminskiy E, Ramon S. Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: beyond the micro‐social. Health Expectations. 2016;19(5):1002-14. .
    1. Zisman-Ilani Y, Barnett E, Harik J, Pavlo A, O’Connell M. Expanding the concept of shared decision making for mental health: a systematic and scoping review of interventions. Ment Heal Rev J. 2017;22(3):191–213.
    1. Zisman-Ilani Y, Roe D, Elwyn G, et al. Shared decision making for psychiatric rehabilitation services before discharge from psychiatric hospitals. Health Commun. 2018. 10.1080/10410236.2018.1431018.
    1. Storm M, Husebø AML, Thomas EC, Elwyn G, Zisman-Ilani Y. Coordinating mental health Services for People with serious mental illness: a scoping review of transitions from psychiatric hospital to community. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2019;46(3):352-67. .
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. In: Stacey D, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Vol 4. Chichester: Wiley; 2017: CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
    1. Thomas E, Ben-David S, Treichler E, et al. A systematic review of shared decision making interventions for service users with serious mental illnesses: state of science and future directions. Psychiatr Ser.
    1. Browne J, Penn DL, Bauer DJ, et al. Perceived autonomy support in the NIMH RAISE early treatment program. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(9):916–922.
    1. Gordon C, Gidugu V, Rogers ES, DeRonck J, Ziedonis D. Adapting open dialogue for early-onset psychosis into the U.S. health care environment: a feasibility study. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(11):1166–1168.
    1. Kreyenbuhl JA, Medoff DR, McEvoy JP, et al. The RAISE connection program: psychopharmacological treatment of people with a first episode of schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(12):1300–1306.
    1. Lucksted A, Essock SM, Stevenson J, et al. Client views of engagement in the RAISE Connection Program for early psychosis recovery. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66(7):699–704.
    1. Robinson DG, Schooler NR, Correll CU, et al. Psychopharmacological treatment in the RAISE-ETP study: outcomes of a manual and computer decision support system based intervention. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(2):169–179.
    1. Simmons MB, Batchelor S, Dimopoulos-Bick T, Howe D. The choice project: peer workers promoting shared decision making at a youth mental health service. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(8):764–770.
    1. Delman J, Clark JA, Eisen SV, Parker VA. Facilitators and barriers to the active participation of clients with serious mental illnesses in medication decision making: the perceptions of young adult clients. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015;42(2):238–253.
    1. Zisman-Ilani Y, Shern D, Deegan P, Kreyenbuhl J, Dixon L, Drake R, Elwyn G. Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):142. .
    1. Joosten EAG, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CPF, de Jong CAJ. Effect of shared decision-making on therapeutic alliance in addiction health care. Pat Prefer Adherenc. 2008;2:277–285.
    1. Leonhardt BL, Vohs JL, Bartolomeo LA, et al. Relationship of metacognition and insight to neural synchronization and cognitive function in early phase psychosis. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2019:1550059419857971. 10.1177/1550059419857971.
    1. Holwerda N, Sanderman R, Pool G, et al. Do patients trust their physician? The role of attachment style in the patient-physician relationship within one year after a cancer diagnosis. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2013;52(1):110–117.
    1. Salmon P, Young B. Dependence and caring in clinical communication: the relevance of attachment and other theories. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):331–338.
    1. Chan KKS, Mak WWS. Shared decision making in the recovery of people with schizophrenia: the role of metacognitive capacities in insight and pragmatic language use. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32(6):535–544.
    1. Lysaker PH, Gagen E, Moritz S, Schweitzer RD. Metacognitive approaches to the treatment of psychosis: a comparison of four approaches. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2018;11:341–351.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–207.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346. 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
    1. 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) Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–692.
    1. Smoliner A, Hantikainen V, Mayer H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Them C. Development and test-theoretical analysis of an instrument for data collection on patients’ preferences and experiences concerning participation in nursing care decisions in acute hospitals. Pflege. 2009;22(6):401–409.
    1. Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Heal Expect. 2006;9(1):25–36.
    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–1367.
    1. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891.
    1. Matthias MS, Salyers MP, Rollins AL, Frankel RM. Decision making in recovery-oriented mental health care. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2012;35(4):305.
    1. Salyers MP, Zisman-Ilani Y. The Palgrave Handbook of American Mental Health Policy. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. Shared decision-making and self-directed care; pp. 197–228.
    1. Dixon L. What it will take to make coordinated specialty care available to anyone experiencing early schizophrenia: getting over the hump. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(1):7–8.
    1. Heinssen R, Goldstein AB, Azrin ST. Evidence-based treatments for first episode psychosis: components of coordinated specialty care. Bethesda: NIMH offical; 2014. . Accessed March 9, 202.
    1. 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. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(4):362–372.
    1. Carpenter WT, Gold JM, Lahti AC, et al. Decisional capacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57(6):533-538. . Accessed February 13, 2017.
    1. Zisman-Ilani Y, Gorbenko KO, Shern D, Elwyn G. Comparing digital vs paper decision aids about the use of antipsychotic medication: client, clinician, caregiver and administrator perspectives. Int J Pers Cent Med. 2017;7(1):21–30.
    1. Roe D, Goldblatt H, Baloush-Klienman V, Swarbrick M, Davidson L. Why and how people decide to stop taking prescribed psychiatric medication: exploring the subjective process of choice. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2009;33(1):38–46.
    1. 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. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(4):696–703.
    1. Juven-Wetzler A, Bar-Ziv D, Cwikel-Hamzany S, Abudy A, Peri N, Zohar J. A pilot study of the “ Continuation of Care” model in “ revolving-door” patients. Eur Psychiatry. 2012;27(4):229–233.
    1. Botha UA, Koen L, Joska JA, et al. The revolving door phenomenon in psychiatry: comparing low-frequency and high-frequency users of psychiatric inpatient services in a developing country. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2010;45(4):461–8. . (Accessed 28 Dec 2020).
    1. Zisman-Ilani Y. The Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid. Patient Decision Aids, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2020; .
    1. Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45(5):626–629.
    1. Scholl I, Loon MK, Sepucha K, et al. Measurement of shared decision making – a review of instruments. Policy Pract Dev Implement Shar Decis Mak An Int Perspect. 2011;105(4):313–324.
    1. Perestelo-Perez L, Rivero-Santana A, Alvarez-Perez Y, et al. Measurement issues of shared decision making in mental health: challenges and opportunities. Ment Heal Rev J. 2017;22(3). 10.1108/MHRJ-01-2017-0004.
    1. O’Connor AM. User Manual - Knowledge. 2000. .
    1. O’Connor AM. User Manual - Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. 1995. doi:.
    1. Sainfort F, Booske BC. Measuring post-decision satisfaction. Med Decis Mak. 2000;20(1):51.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25.
    1. Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM. Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(1):102–107.
    1. Byerly MJ, Nakonezny PA, Rush AJ. The Brief Adherence Rating Scale (BARS) validated against electronic monitoring in assessing the antipsychotic medication adherence of outpatients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Schizophr Res. 2008;100(1-3):60–69.
    1. Rosenheck R, Leslie D, Sint K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive, integrated care for first episode psychosis in the NIMH RAISE early treatment program. Schizophr Bull. 2016;42(4):896–906.
    1. Tait L, Birchwood M, Trower P. A new scale (SES) to measure engagement with community mental health services. J Ment Heal. 2002;11(2):191–198.
    1. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Pilot studies: common uses and misuses. . Published 2020. Accessed October 10, 2020.
    1. Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, editors. Attachment Theory and Close Relationships. New York: Guilford Press; 1998. pp. 46–76.
    1. Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S. Reliability and validity of the apathy evaluation scale. Psychiatry Res. 1991;38(2):143–162.
    1. Horvath AO, Greenberg LS. Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. J Couns Psychol. 1989;36(2):223–233.
    1. Hall MA, Camacho F, Dugan E, Balkrishnan R. Trust in the medical profession: conceptual and measurement issues. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1419–1439.
    1. Keefe RSE, Goldberg TE, Harvey PD, Gold JM, Poe MP, Coughenour L. The Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia: reliability, sensitivity, and comparison with a standard neurocognitive battery. Schizophr Res. 2004;68(2-3):283–297.
    1. Green MF, Kern RS, Braff DL, Mintz J. Neurocognitive deficits and functional outcome in schizophrenia: are we measuring the “right stuff”? Schizophr Bull. 2000;26(1):119–136.
    1. Birchwood M, Smith J, Drury V, Healy J, Macmillan F, Slade M. A self-report Insight Scale for psychosis: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994;89(1):62–67.
    1. Hasson-Ohayon I, Kravetz S, Roe D, David AS, Weiser M. Insight into psychosis and quality of life. Compr Psychiatry. 2006;47(4):265–269.
    1. Boyd JE, Otilingam PG, Deforge BR. Brief version of the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale: psychometric properties and relationship to depression, self esteem, recovery orientation, empowerment, and perceived devaluation and discrimination. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2014;37(1):17–23.
    1. Fagerland MW. T-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studiesa paradox of statistical practice? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):78.
    1. Grady C. Payment of clinical research subjects. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(7):1681–1687.
    1. Grady C. The continued complexities of paying research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(9):5–7.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner