Maren Spies

Patient Preferences and Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) as means to the involvement of patients in medical decision making is increasingly demanded by treatment guidelines and legislation. Also, matching of patients’ preferences to treatments has been shown to be effective regarding symptom reduction. Despite promising results for patients with substance use disorders (SUD) no systematic evaluation of the literature has been provided. The aim is therefore to give a systematic overview of the literature of patient preferences and SDM in the treatment of patients with SUD. Methods An electronic literature search of the databases Medline, Embase, Psyndex and Clinical Trials Register was performed. Variations of the search terms substance use disorders, patient preferences and SDM were used. For data synthesis the populations, interventions and outcomes were summarized and described according to the PRISMA statement. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results N = 25 trials were included in this review. These were conducted between 1986 and 2014 with altogether n = 8.729 patients. Two studies found that patients with SUD preferred to be actively involved in treatment decisions. Treatment preferences were assessed in n = 18 studies, where the majority of patients preferred outpatient compared with inpatient treatment. Matching patients to preferences resulted in a reduction on substance use (n = 3 studies), but the majority of studies found no significant effect. Interventions for SDM differed across patient populations and optional therapeutic techniques. Discussion Patients with substance use disorders should be involved in medical treatment decisions, as patients with other health conditions. A suitable approach is Shared Decision Making, emphasizing the patients’ preferences. However, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed regarding SDM interventions in patient populations with substance use disorders.

ICF-basierte Messinstrumente zur Bedarfserfassung und Evaluation in der Behandlung von Patienten mit psychischen Störungen - ein systematisches Review

AIMS The aim of the study is to provide a systematic overview of assessment instruments that refer conceptually to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and can be used in the context of mental disorders. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search in the scientific databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, PSYNDEX) and screened relevant conference proceedings since 2001. From abstracts fitting our inclusion criteria we reviewed full texts. Identified assessments were compared regarding their operationalization of the ICF. RESULTS Out of 440 identified abstracts we selected 8 assessment instruments for interviewer-, proxy- or self-assessment. Two were generic and six disease-specific scales. Differences pertain to the extent as well as coverage and operationalization of the ICF. CONCLUSION Existing instruments differ in psychometric properties and operationalization of the ICF. This review might help clinicians to select ICF-based assessments.

Content comparison of guideline-recommended instruments used in treatment for alcohol use disorders

Abstract Purpose: Practice guidelines recommend the use of standardized instruments in the treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs); however, the extent to which these instruments assess patients’ functioning is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the domains of functioning and contextual factors contained in guideline-recommended instruments, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as a reference. Materials and methods: We identified instruments by reviewing AUD treatment guidelines used in Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. We included instruments which were available in English free of charge, we excluded instruments developed solely for diagnostic or epidemiological purposes and those for children or adolescents. Following a standardized set of rules, two health care researchers identified the concepts contained in the items on the instruments and independently linked them to ICF categories. Results: A total of 10 instruments were included. Among 517 items, 752 meaningful concepts (MCs) were derived, and 622 of them were linked to the ICF. Inter-rater agreement was κ = 0.61. One hundred eighty eight MCs referred to personal factors, 175 to body functions, 168 to activity and participation, and 91 to environmental factors. The most frequently linked ICF chapter was b1 (mental functions). Conclusions: Instruments recommended in AUD treatment guidelines vary considerably in their assessment of patients’ functioning and contextual factors. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. ICF linkage provides guidance for clinicians and researchers in the selection of appropriate instruments. Implications for rehabilitation Since instruments that are recommended in alcohol treatment guidelines vary considerably in respect the functioning domains and context factors they cover, it may be challenging for clinicians to select instruments relevant to their treatment context. Using the ICF as framework, our results provide guidance for clinicians in how to select appropriate instruments. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors and activities and participation are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. Clinicians may employ AUD-unspecific or ICF-based instruments to cover these components if needed.