Models of shared decision

Shared Risk Taking: Shared Decision Making in Serious Mental Illness Yaara Zisman-Ilani, M.A., Ph.D., Paul H. Lysaker, Ph.D., Ilanit Hasson-Ohayon, M.A., Ph.D.

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interpersonal health communicationmodel 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. ThisOpen Forumpresents a reconceptualization of SDMas a

process of shared risk taking that often occurs during dif- ferent phases of illness management and recovery. The concepts of intersubjectivity, meaning making, and meta- cognition are offered to inform clinical interventions needed to address risk in SDM.

Psychiatric Services 2021; 72:461–463; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000156

Shared decision making (SDM) aims to facilitate patient- centered care and treatment adherence by promoting joint treatment decision making between patients with chronic conditions and clinicians (1). In mental health care, SDM has been recommended for people with serious mental illness, given that self-determination, choice, and autonomy are core aspects of recovery-oriented care (2, 3).

Despite the proliferating development of SDM interven- tions (2), SDM implementation for patients with serious mental illness has been relatively less successful than for other groups. This disparity has been attributed to a variety of barriers (4), including clinicians’ paternalistic approach to care of patients with serious mental illness and stigma- related beliefs that SDM is inappropriate for such patients. Unlike other chronic nonpsychiatric conditions, the char- acteristics of serious mental illness may pose a major barrier to SDM implementation. For example, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia can affect decision-making capacity and serve as barriers to SDM, whereas an elevated blood-glucose level associated with diabetes does not stop patients from being involved in SDM. Another potential barrier to SDM among patients with serious mental illness is negative internalized self- stigma, a common experience that leads patients to un- derestimate their own competency for decision making and autonomy (5, 6).

A greater barrier, though, may be clinicians’ fear of lia- bility and legal exposure. Clinicians may resist SDM with patients with serious mental illness because they fear being held liable for any potentially negative outcome that might result fromSDM, such as symptom exacerbation, hospitalization,

or death. Burnout, patient load, and limited appointment time also contribute to clinicians’ reluctance to engage in SDM (4).

Although promising, research and implementation of SDM in mental health care have overlooked the fact that SDM is sometimes at odds with clinicians’ training to miti- gate the risk of harm and with organizational policies that are inherently risk averse. To promote the implementation and usage of SDM with people with serious mental illness, clinicians must acknowledge and directly confront issues of risk, which are inherent in psychiatry and which hinder SDM with individuals who have serious mental illness. In this Open Forum, we offer a new conceptualization, shared risk taking, as a unique way to view SDM with people with serious mental illness. We argue that risks are an inevitable part of the SDM process and are not related only to the decision at hand and that joint reflection by the clinician and patient should be used to address SDM-related risks.

Inherent Risks in Serious Mental Illness Management and Recovery

Across many psychiatric settings, different levels of risk and standards of risk management are used to mitigate harm and minimize negative health outcomes while prioritizing management of some risks over others. In psychiatry, re- ducing risks to safety is the highest priority, because it is a key part of one aspect of clinicians’ professional training and responsibility and is the common institutional policy among mental health services. Perceived risks to safety affect both clinicians and patients, but differently. For clinicians, safety

Psychiatric Services 72:4, April 2021 ps.psychiatryonline.org 461

OPEN FORUM

risks, such as relapse, present high potential for legal lia- bility, particularly if the risk is accompanied by symptoms potentially related to harm, such as suicidality or homi- cidality. For patients, these risks may take the form of re- duced quality of life, which might stem from symptom exacerbation, hospitalization, or the psychological or po- tentially permanent physical side effects of treatment (7).

Yet the path to recovery from serious mental illness re- quires more than minimizing safety-related risks. Recovery- oriented care involves a broad array of risks inherent in all domains of patients’ lives, such as employment, education, and relationships. For a patient, a decision to stop working poses economic and mental health risks, whereas returning to work after a psychiatric hospitalization may be associated with high risks of humiliation or failure, which pose other sets of emotional and psychological risks. Nevertheless, recovery-related decisions do not usually pose significant risks for either clinician or patient, and SDM can be en- couraged. Therefore, there is a greater chance of success- fully implementing and using SDM in recovery-related decisions, such as those concerning employment or educa- tion, and a lower chance of using SDM in health-related decisions, such as tapering medications, that involve safety risks for both patients and clinicians.

Shared Risk Taking

With the understanding that risk is both unavoidable and a core element of any decision (8), the challenges of SDM for persons with serious mental illness become apparent. How should clinicians and patients make decisions with poten- tially negative outcomes or when a patient’s decision-making capacity is unclear? These dilemmas point to the reality that in some situations and for some decisions, joint decision making with people with serious mental illness will likely involve decisions about risk and thus might be better char- acterized as shared risk taking.

We introduce shared risk taking as a new perspective that aims to emphasize the often-overlooked risks associated with SDM with patients with serious mental illness that might inhibit SDM usage, implementation, and effective- ness. For example, clinicians might involve patients in choosing between different medications but will not present the option of abstaining from medication (9). Patients, for their part, might conceal certain information relevant to SDM from their clinician—for example, that they have tapered or stopped taking their medications—to avoid the risk of losing disability stipends or other benefits or of being seeing negatively by the psychiatrist (10). We offer shared risk taking as a way to attend to, via processes of intersubjectivity and metacognition, unspoken risks that the SDM literature does not explicitly discuss or offer ways of addressing.

In shared risk taking, the clinician and patient should jointly reflect on the inherent risks of any decision and discuss issues related to the patient’s and clinician’s stig- matizing or paternalistic beliefs regarding their inability to

participate in decision making. The clinician and patient should explicitly conduct a risk assessment of the decision, its safety implications, and the patient’s capacity to be in- volved in the decision making. A shared-risk-taking ap- proach is valuable not only in psychiatry and mental health settings but also in populations of individuals with de- velopmental disorders, Alzheimer’s disease, or drug abuse and even with children, whose capacity for decision making is questioned and who are often exposed to stigmatizing and paternalistic beliefs.

The recognition of risks in SDM with patients who have serious mental illness calls for a deeper exploration of at least two aspects of the SDM process that have been rela- tively unrecognized. First, SDM focuses more on presenting medical options and discussing their risks and benefits than on sharing emotions pertaining to risk taking. We believe that the success of SDM relies on a set of fundamentally intersubjective patient-clinician processes that involve a shared experience of anxiety, worry, and fear when certain decisions are made (11). Patients’ and clinicians’ expression of both worries and hopes during SDM can serve as a foundation for joint reflection and can lead to a better decision-making process, an informed decision, and a greater commitment and motivation to attain a positive outcome. Of note, appointment lengths and professional attitudes in some setting are less likely to leave room for sharing thoughts and feelings than in other settings. Nevertheless, we recommend that clinicians at least attempt to share thoughts and feelings related to risk taking when making decisions.

The second aspect of SDM that may have been previously unrecognized involves considering the process of meaning making and the metacognitive abilities that enable it (12, 13). Certainly, any decision to take a risk must involve meanings assigned to the behavior in question. For example, deciding whether a risk isworth takingwhen considering discontinuing a medication, seeking a romantic relationship, or applying for a new job must be a function of how meaningful a medication, a relationship, or a new job could be to the de- cision maker (8, 14). Often, SDM does not invite broader explorations of meaning, and SDM principles do not ade- quately translate into existing SDM tools. Thus, to improve SDM in mental health care, clinicians must acknowledge that through joint reflection, risks are given meaning in the context of the patient’s unique life—that is, they are interpreted as more than simply generic medical risks.

Conclusions

There is a gap between recommendations to disseminate and implement SDM in mental health care and the limited use of SDM in practice. We suggest a new conceptualization, shared risk taking, to explain this gap and to facilitate the implementation of SDM and adherence to its principles, when applicable. This is not simply a matter of semantics: reframing SDM as shared risk taking poses important

462 ps.psychiatryonline.org Psychiatric Services 72:4, April 2021

SHARED DECISION MAKING IN SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS

challenges for SDM research and practice. It seems imperative to explore the different experiences of risk for clinicians and patients. Althoughoutside the scope of thisOpenForum, future research should explore the institutional and policy factors that both hinder and enable patients and clinicians in making adaptive decisions about risk (15). Although SDM occurs in the interpersonal-intersubjective patient-clinician interaction, cli- nicians must manage requirements at both the system and organizational levels simultaneously, which has also been shown to inhibit the adoption of SDM, even when clinicians view the practice favorably. Furthermore, current SDM prac- tice, which often relies on decision aids and decision support tools (2), is not designed to capture risk taking in the context of complex decisions with broader life implications. Future re- search should focus on adapting SDM tools to encompass the shared risk of decision making in serious mental illness. Adopting a shared-risk-taking perspective that takes into ac- count patient capacity, metacognition, and the existence of intersubjectivity in the experience of risks can facilitate SDM in mental health care by targeting a blind spot in SDM practice.

AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION

Department of Social and Behavioral Science, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia (Zisman-Ilani); Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (Lysaker); Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel (Hasson-Ohayon). Send correspondence to Dr. Zisman-Ilani ([email protected]).

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Received March 10, 2020; revisions received June 14 and July 23, 2020; accepted August 5, 2020; published online February 9, 2021.

REFERENCES 1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the

medical encounter: what does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44:681–692

2. Zisman-Ilani Y, Barnett E, Harik J, et al: Expanding the concept of shared decision making for mental health: a systematic and scoping review of interventions. Ment Heal Rev J. 2017; 22:191–213

3. Salyers MP, Zisman-Ilani Y: Shared decision-making and self-directed care; in The Palgrave Handbook of American Mental Health Policy. Edited by Goldman H, Frank RG, Morrissey JP. Cham, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2020

4. Hamann J, Heres S: Adapting shared decision making for indi- viduals with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2014; 65:1483– 1486

5. Simmons M, Hetrick S, Jorm A: Shared decision-making: benefits, barriers, and current opportunities for application. Australas Psy- chiatry 2010; 18:394–397

6. Hamann J, Bühner M, Rüsch N: Self-stigma and consumer par- ticipation in shared decision making in mental health services. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:783–788

7. Ostrow L, Jessell L, Hurd M, et al: Discontinuing psychiatric medications: a survey of long-term users. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68: 1232–1238

8. Ponte K. A risk too big not to take: a story of recovery. Psychiatr Serv. 2020; 71:516–517

9. Zisman-Ilani Y, Shern D, Deegan P, et al: Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encoun- ter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psy- chosis. BMC Psychiatry 2018; 18:142

10. Roe D, Goldblatt H, Baloush-Klienman V, et al: Why and how people decide to stop taking prescribed psychiatric medication: exploring the subjective process of choice. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2009; 33:38–46

11. Hasson-Ohayon I, Kravetz S, Lysaker PH: The special challenges of psychotherapy with persons with psychosis: intersubjective meta- cognitive model of agreement and shared meaning. Clin Psychol Psychother 2017; 24:428–440.

12. Chan KKS, Mak WWS: Shared decision making in the recovery of people with schizophrenia: the role of metacognitive capacities in insight and pragmatic language use. Clin Psychol Rev 2012; 32: 535–544

13. Lysaker PH, Minor KS, Lysaker JT, et al: Metacognitive function and fragmentation in schizophrenia: relationship to cognition, self- experience and developing treatments. Schizophr Res Cogn 2019; 19:100142

14. Deegan PE, Drake RE: Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process. Psychiatr Serv 2006; 57:1636– 1639

15. Morrison AP, Hutton P, Shiers D, et al: Antipsychotics: is it time to introduce patient choice? Br J Psychiatry 2012; 201:83–84

Psychiatric Services 72:4, April 2021 ps.psychiatryonline.org 463

ZISMAN-ILANI ET AL.