TY - JOUR
T1 - From idealist to realist - designing and implementing shared decision-making interventions in the choice of antipsychotic prescription in people living with psychosis (SHAPE): a realist review (Part 2 - designing SDM interventions: optimising design and local implementation)
AU - Fitzgerald, Ita
AU - Howe, Jo
AU - Maidment, Ian
AU - Wallace, Emma
AU - Zisman-Ilani, Yaara
AU - Hojlund, Mikkel
AU - O'Dwyer, Sarah
AU - Dhubhlaing, Ciara Ni
AU - Crowley, Erin
AU - Sahm, Laura J.
N1 - Copyright © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
PY - 2025/5/21
Y1 - 2025/5/21
N2 - BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) implementation remains limited in psychosis management, particularly within antipsychotic prescribing. When and why prescribers engage in SDM within these contexts is largely unknown. Part 2 of this 2-part realist review aimed to understand what SDM intervention strategies and local implementation contexts are responsible for successful prescriber engagement and why.Study designCINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for evidence to develop realist program theories explaining relationships between meso- and micro-level contexts and impact on prescriber behaviors.Study resultsFrom 106 included documents, 5 program theories were developed explaining mechanisms responsible for increasing prescriber engagement with desired behaviors, alongside facilitative features within service delivery contexts and workforce development. Key mechanisms included reducing prescriber fear of sole responsibility for harm, reducing the perceived burden of SDM, increasing prescriber confidence in their ability to productively negotiate treatment consultations and their confidence to safely increase patient autonomy within decision-making. These mechanisms should be the focus of those interested in designing SDM interventions to increase prescriber engagement and those responsible for translating results of effective interventions into real-world settings to ensure facilitative contexts are maintained.ConclusionIntervention strategies that should be prioritized for scale-up include attempting SDM within existing therapeutic relationships, adopting a multidisciplinary team (MDT) responsibility for SDM implementation, and workforce training in skillsets required of effective SDM application. Efforts to standardize psychosis care via MDTs and systematically reduce discontinuity and fragmentation of care are required at policy-level.
AB - BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) implementation remains limited in psychosis management, particularly within antipsychotic prescribing. When and why prescribers engage in SDM within these contexts is largely unknown. Part 2 of this 2-part realist review aimed to understand what SDM intervention strategies and local implementation contexts are responsible for successful prescriber engagement and why.Study designCINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for evidence to develop realist program theories explaining relationships between meso- and micro-level contexts and impact on prescriber behaviors.Study resultsFrom 106 included documents, 5 program theories were developed explaining mechanisms responsible for increasing prescriber engagement with desired behaviors, alongside facilitative features within service delivery contexts and workforce development. Key mechanisms included reducing prescriber fear of sole responsibility for harm, reducing the perceived burden of SDM, increasing prescriber confidence in their ability to productively negotiate treatment consultations and their confidence to safely increase patient autonomy within decision-making. These mechanisms should be the focus of those interested in designing SDM interventions to increase prescriber engagement and those responsible for translating results of effective interventions into real-world settings to ensure facilitative contexts are maintained.ConclusionIntervention strategies that should be prioritized for scale-up include attempting SDM within existing therapeutic relationships, adopting a multidisciplinary team (MDT) responsibility for SDM implementation, and workforce training in skillsets required of effective SDM application. Efforts to standardize psychosis care via MDTs and systematically reduce discontinuity and fragmentation of care are required at policy-level.
KW - Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use
KW - Decision Making, Shared
KW - Humans
KW - Psychotic Disorders/drug therapy
UR - https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/advance-article/doi/10.1093/schbul/sbaf059/8139758
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105010579608&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/schbul/sbaf059
DO - 10.1093/schbul/sbaf059
M3 - Article
C2 - 40396338
SN - 0586-7614
VL - 51
SP - 932
EP - 948
JO - Schizophrenia Bulletin
JF - Schizophrenia Bulletin
IS - 4
M1 - sbaf059
ER -