Redesigning phase 3 and 4 trials to adopt shared decision making

Grootens, Koen P.; Sommer, Iris

doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00385-0

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Action research examining the effectiveness of supported decision-making interventions is also going to be important. Authors of a recent paper considering appropriate methodologies for the researching of shared decision making, which admittedly is a different but similar concept to supported decision making, recommend that the re-thinking of medical trial designs is needed [32]. Consistent with the co-produced methodology employed in the present study, the involvement of service users and carers in such re-thinking and trial participants as co-investigators in studies, are both identified as being required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

From Substitute to Supported Decision Making: Practitioner, Community and Service-User Perspectives on Privileging Will and Preferences in Mental Health Care

Gordon

Gardiner

Gledhill

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) requires substitute decision making being abolished and replaced with supported decision making. The current exploratory study involved a series of hui (meetings) with subject matter experts across the spectrum of the mental health care system to identify interventions facilitative of supported decision making; and the prioritisation of those in accordance with their own perspectives. A mixed-methods approach was used to categorise, describe and rank the data. Categories of intervention identified included proactive pre-event planning/post-event debriefing, enabling options and choices, information provision, facilitating conditions and support to make a decision, and education. The category of facilitating conditions and support to make a decision was prioritised by the majority of stakeholders; however, people from Māori, Pasifika, and LGBTQIA+ perspectives, who disproportionally experience inequities and discrimination, prioritised the categories of proactive post-event debriefing/pre-event planning and/or information provision. Similar attributes across categories of intervention detailed the importance of easily and variably accessible options and choices and how these could best be supported in terms of people, place, time, material resources, regular reviews and reflection. Implications of these findings, particularly in terms of the operationalisation of supported decision making in practice, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%