Background Peer support is recognized globally as an essential recovery service for people with mental health conditions. With the influx of digital mental health services changing the way mental health care is delivered, peer supporters are increasingly using technology to deliver peer support. In light of these technological advances, there is a need to review and synthesize the emergent evidence for peer-supported digital health interventions for adults with mental health conditions. Objective The aim of this study was to identify and review the evidence of digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. Methods This systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1946 and December 2018 that examined digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. Additional articles were found by searching the reference lists from the 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria and a Google Scholar search in June 2019. Participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria were used to assess study eligibility. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and reviewed all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. All included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. Results Thirty studies (11 randomized controlled trials, 2 quasiexperimental, 15 pre-post designs, and 2 qualitative studies) were included that reported on 24 interventions. Most of the studies demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of peer-to-peer networks, peer-delivered interventions supported with technology, and asynchronous and synchronous technologies. Conclusions Digital peer support interventions appear to be feasible and acceptable, with strong potential for clinical effectiveness. However, the field is in the early stages of development and requires well-powered efficacy and clinical effectiveness trials. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020139037; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID= 139037

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient’s particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown. Methods We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial. Results DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes. Conclusions DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1034-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose Much of the existing literature on shared decision making (SDM) in mental health has focused on the use of decision aids (DAs). However, DAs tend to focus on information exchange and neglect other essential elements to SDM in mental health. The purpose of this paper is to expand the review of SDM interventions in mental health by identifying important components, in addition to information exchange, that may contribute to the SDM process in mental health. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a systematic literature search using the Ovid-Medline database with supplementary scoping search of the literature on SDM in mental health treatment. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to describe (in a conceptual work or development paper) or evaluate (in any type of research design) a SDM intervention in mental health. The authors included studies of participants with a mental illness facing a mental health care decision, their caregivers, and providers. Findings A final sample of 31 records was systematically selected. Most interventions were developed and/or piloted in the USA for adults in community psychiatric settings. Although information exchange was a central component of the identified studies, important additional elements were: eliciting patient preferences and values, providing patient communication skills training, eliciting shared care planning, facilitating patient motivation, and eliciting patient participation in goal setting. Originality/value The review indicates that additional elements, other than information exchange such as sufficient rapport and trusting relationships, are important and needed as part of SDM in mental health. Future SDM interventions in mental health could consider including techniques that aim to increase patient involvement in activities such as goal settings, values, and preference clarification, or facilitating patient motivation, before and after presenting treatment options.

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interpersonal health communication model that is underutilized with people with serious mental illness. Although research has emphasized the role of patient capacity-, clinician-, and system-related barriers in SDM underutilization, the risk taking that affects SDM with people with mental illness is less often discussed. This Open Forum presents a reconceptualization of SDM as a process of shared risk taking that often occurs during different phases of illness management and recovery. The concepts of intersubjectivity, meaning making, and metacognition are offered to inform clinical interventions needed to address risk in SDM.