Supported Decision Making in Serious Mental Illness.

Dilip V Jeste, Graham M L Eglit, Barton W Palmer, Jonathan G Martinis, Peter Blanck, Elyn R Saks
Author Information

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Making decisions is central to the exercise of control over one's well-being. Many individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience limitations in their decision-making capacity. These individuals have often been placed under legal guardianship and substitute decision makers have been appointed to make decisions on their behalf. More recently, supported decision making (SDM) has emerged as a possible alternative in some cases. SDM involves recruitment of trusted supports to enhance an individual's capacity in the decision-making process, enabling him or her to retain autonomy in life decisions. This overview examines issues associated with decision-making capacity in SMI, frameworks of substitute decision making and SDM, and emerging empirical research on SDM.
METHOD: This is an overview of the medical and legal literature on decision making capacity and supported decision making for persons with SMI.
RESULTS: Many but not all individuals with SMI exhibit decrements in decision-making capacity and skill, in part due to cognitive impairment. There are no published data on rates of substitute decision making/guardianship or SDM for SMI. Only three empirical studies have explored SDM in this population. These studies suggest that SDM is viewed as an acceptable and potentially superior alternative to substitute decision making for patients and their caretakers.
CONCLUSIONS: SDM is a promising alternative to substitute decision making for persons with SMI. Further empirical research is needed to clarify candidates for SDM, decisions in need of support, selection of supporters, guidelines for the SDM process, integration of SDM with emerging technological platforms, and outcomes of SDM. Recommendations for implementation of and research on SDM for SMI are provided.

References

  1. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):966-74 [PMID: 17679641]
  2. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016 Sep;31(6):530-40 [PMID: 27551024]
  3. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;61(3):230-6 [PMID: 14993110]
  4. Gerontologist. 2007 Oct;47(5):591-603 [PMID: 17989401]
  5. J R Soc Med. 2004 Sep;97(9):415-20 [PMID: 15340019]
  6. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007 May;68(5):689-96 [PMID: 17503977]
  7. Law Hum Behav. 1995 Apr;19(2):105-26 [PMID: 11660290]
  8. Community Ment Health J. 1995 Apr;31(2):139-52 [PMID: 7789122]
  9. J Psychiatr Res. 2016 Jul;78:42-7 [PMID: 27058644]
  10. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2016;86(5):486-99 [PMID: 26652607]
  11. Schizophr Bull. 2009 Jul;35(4):719-29 [PMID: 18245061]
  12. Schizophr Bull. 2006 Jan;32(1):98-106 [PMID: 16192412]
  13. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 13;166(5):493-7 [PMID: 16534034]
  14. J Psychiatr Res. 2007 Jan-Feb;41(1-2):97-118 [PMID: 16360706]
  15. Schizophr Res. 2013 Jun;147(1):86-90 [PMID: 23537475]

Grants

  1. 90DP0076/ACL HHS
  2. R01 MH094151/NIMH NIH HHS
  3. T32 MH019934/NIMH NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Decision Making
Humans
Mental Competency
Mental Disorders

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SDMdecisionSMImakingcapacitysubstitutedecisionsdecision-makingindividualsalternativeempiricalresearchMakingManylegalsupportedprocessoverviewemergingpersonsstudiesOBJECTIVE:centralexercisecontrolone'swell-beingseriousmentalillnessexperiencelimitationsoftenplacedguardianshipmakersappointedmakebehalfrecentlyemergedpossiblecasesinvolvesrecruitmenttrustedsupportsenhanceindividual'senablingretainautonomylifeexaminesissuesassociatedframeworksMETHOD:medicalliteratureRESULTS:exhibitdecrementsskillpartduecognitiveimpairmentpublisheddataratesmaking/guardianshipthreeexploredpopulationsuggestviewedacceptablepotentiallysuperiorpatientscaretakersCONCLUSIONS:promisingneededclarifycandidatesneedsupportselectionsupportersguidelinesintegrationtechnologicalplatformsoutcomesRecommendationsimplementationprovidedSupportedDecisionSeriousMentalIllness

Similar Articles

Cited By