Abstract
Purpose
To determine the level of treatment-related decisional conflict in patients with emotional disorders and to establish its relationship with sociodemographic and clinical variables.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional survey on a convenience sample of 321 consecutive psychiatric outpatients with emotional disorders. All patients completed self-report questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical variables, patients’ preference of participation in decision making, perceived decisional conflict about treatment, adherence to prescribed treatment, and satisfaction with the psychiatric care provided. Multiple correspondences analysis was used to investigate relationships of decisional conflict with the variables of interest.
Results
Approximately, two-thirds of psychiatric outpatients self-reported decisional conflict regarding their treatment. Interestingly, the presence of decisional conflict did not influence significantly patients’ preferences of participation or their adherence to prescribed treatment. Patients without decisional conflict registered significantly higher satisfaction. Multiple correspondences analysis evidenced two clear profiles: patients without decisional conflict received the treatment they preferred, mainly psychotherapy or combined treatment, had been under psychiatric treatment for longer than 5 years, and self-reported high satisfaction with health care received; on the other hand, patients with decisional conflict did not receive the treatment they preferred, were treated with pharmacotherapy alone for a period of time between 1 and 5 years, and self-reported medium satisfaction with received health care.
Conclusion
The high level of decisional conflict found in patients with depression and anxiety attending a secondary care service could be an important driving force when personalizing and tailoring information and teaching skills to patients about their illnesses and their treatments.
Acknowledgments
This paper is part of a wider research project (PI10/00955) supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Union – Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional. This study shares parts of its methodology and evaluation methods with previous studies as referenced.Citation1,Citation6,Citation23,Citation35–Citation43
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.