Background: In the last decade, the clinician-patient relationship has become more of a partnership. There is growing interest in shared decision-making (SDM) in which the clinician and patient go through all phases of the decision-making process together, share treatment preferences, and reach an agreement on treatment choice. The purpose of this review is to determine the extent, quality, and consistency of the evidence about the effectiveness of SDM. Method: This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SDM interventions with non-SDM interventions. Eleven RCTs met the required criteria, and were included in this review. Results: The methodological quality of the studies included in this review was high overall. Five RCTs showed no difference between SDM and control, one RCT showed no short-term effects but showed positive longer-term effects, and five RCTs reported a positive effect of SDM on outcome measures. The two studies included of people with mental healthcare problems reported a positive effect of SDM. Conclusions: Despite the considerable interest in applying SDM clinically, little research regarding its effectiveness has been done to date. It has been argued that SDM is particularly suitable for long-term decisions, especially in the context of a chronic illness, and when the intervention contains more than one session. Our results show that under such circumstances, SDM can be an effective method of reaching a treatment agreement. Evidence for the effectiveness of SDM in the context of other types of decisions, or in general, is still inconclusive. Future studies of SDM should probably focus on long-term decisions.

Background: In the last decades, shared decision-making (SDM) models have been developed to increase patient involvement in treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a SDM intervention (SDMI) for patients dependent on psychoactive substances in addiction health care programs. The intervention consisted of a structured procedure to reach a treatment agreement and comprised 5 sessions. Methods: Clinicians in 3 treatment centres in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to the SDMI or a standard procedure to reach a treatment agreement. Results: A total of 220 substance-dependent patients receiving inpatient treatment were randomised either to the intervention (n = 111) or control (n = 109) conditions. Reductions in primary substance use (F_{(1, 124)} = 248.38, p < 0.01) and addiction severity (F₍₈₎ = 27.76, p < 0.01) were found in the total population. Significant change was found in the total population regarding patients’ quality of life measured at baseline, exit and follow-up (F_{(2, 146)} = 5.66, p < 0.01). On the European Addiction Severity Index, SDMI showed significantly better improvements than standard decision-making regarding drug use (F_{(1, 164)} = 7.40, p < 0.01) and psychiatric problems (F_{(1, 164)} = 5.91, p = 0.02) at 3-month follow-up. Conclusion: SDMI showed a significant add-on effect on top of a well-established 3-month inpatient intervention. SDMI offers an effective, structured, frequent and well-balanced intervention to carry out and evaluate a treatment agreement.

The construct of alexithymia as a vulnerability factor for substance use disorders (SUD) is under debate, because of conflicting research results regarding alexithymia as a state or trait phenomenon. The absolute and relative stability of alexithymia were evaluated in a pre-post design as part of a randomised controlled trial, controlling for several co-variates. Assessments were done with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI) at baseline and follow-up of a 3-month trial of inpatient Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) with or without a Shared Decision Making intervention for 187 SUD patients. Paired sample t-tests and analyses of variance were performed to assess absolute stability, intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for relative stability and multivariate linear regression models were used to evaluate the relation between co-variates and change in alexithymia. Mean level reduction of total TAS-20 and two subfactors demonstrated no absolute stability, but change in alexithymia differed for patients with low, moderate and high alexithymia scores. Relative stability of alexithymia was moderate to high for the total population, but differed according to low, moderate and high alexithymia scores. The EuropASI "psychiatry" domain, covering anxiety and depression, was related to alexithymia, but CBT-related variables were not. In conclusion, alexithymia is partly a state-dependent phenomenon, but not a stable personality trait in this SUD population.

No abstract