Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Shoesmith W, Chua SH, Giridharan B, Forman D, Fyfe S
    PMID: 32577126 DOI: 10.1186/s13033-020-00374-7
    Background: There is strong evidence that collaborative practice in mental healthcare improves outcomes for patients. The concept of collaborative practice can include collaboration between healthcare workers of different professional backgrounds and collaboration with patients, families and communities. Most models of collaborative practice were developed in Western and high-income countries and are not easily translatable to settings which are culturally diverse and lower in resources. This project aimed to develop a set of recommendations to improve collaborative practice in Malaysia.

    Methods: In the first phase, qualitative research was conducted to better understand collaboration in a psychiatric hospital (previously published). In the second phase a local hospital level committee from the same hospital was created to act on the qualitative research and create a set of recommendations to improve collaborative practice at the hospital for the hospital. Some of these recommendations were implemented, where feasible and the outcomes discussed. These recommendations were then sent to a nationwide Delphi panel. These committees consisted of healthcare staff of various professions, patients and carers.

    Results: The Delphi panel reached consensus after three rounds. The recommendations include ways to improve collaborative problem solving and decision making in the hospital, ways to improve the autonomy and relatedness of patients, carers and staff and ways to improve the levels of resources (e.g. skills training in staff, allowing people with lived experience of mental disorder to contribute).

    Conclusions: This study showed that the Delphi method is a feasible method of developing recommendations and guidelines in Malaysia and allowed a wider range of stakeholders to contribute than traditional methods of developing guidelines and recommendations.Trial registration Registered in the National Medical Research Register, Malaysia, NMRR-13-308-14792.

  2. Shoesmith W, Awang Borhanuddin AFB, Pereira EJ, Nordin N, Giridharan B, Forman D, et al.
    BJPsych Open, 2019 Dec 12;6(1):e4.
    PMID: 31829292 DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2019.92
    BACKGROUND: The systems that help people with mental disorders in Malaysia include hospitals, primary care, traditional and religious systems, schools and colleges, employers, families and other community members.

    AIMS: To better understand collaboration between and within these systems and create a theoretical framework for system development.

    METHOD: A total of 26 focus groups and 27 individual interviews were undertaken with patients, carers, psychiatric hospital staff, primary care and district hospital staff, religious and traditional healers, community leaders, non-governmental organisation workers, and school and college counsellors. Grounded theory methods were used to analyse the data and create a theory of collaboration.

    RESULTS: Three themes both defined and enabled collaboration: (a) collaborative behaviours; (b) motivation towards a common goal or value; and (c) autonomy. Three other enablers of collaboration were identified: (d) relatedness (for example trusting, understanding and caring about the other); (e) resources (competence, time, physical resources and opportunities); and (f) motivation for collaboration (weighing up the personal costs versus benefits of acting collaboratively).

    CONCLUSIONS: The first three themes provided a definition of collaboration in this context: 'two or more parties working together towards a common goal or value, while maintaining autonomy'. The main barriers to collaboration were lack of autonomy, relatedness, motivation and resources, together with the potential cost of acting collaboratively without reciprocation. Finding ways to change these structural, cultural and organisational features is likely to improve collaboration in this system and improve access to care and outcomes for patients.

  3. Shoesmith WD, Abdullah AC, Tan BY, Kamu A, Ho CM, Giridharan B, et al.
    Patient Educ Couns, 2022 Jan 15.
    PMID: 35078681 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.01.005
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to create a measure of collaborative processes between healthcare team members, patients, and carers.

    METHODS: A shared decision-making scale was developed using a qualitative research derived model and refined using Rasch and factor analysis. The scale was used by staff in the hospital for four consecutive years (n = 152, 121, 119 and 121) and by two independent patients' and carers' samples (n = 223 and 236).

    RESULTS: Respondents had difficulty determining what constituted a decision and the scale was redeveloped after first use in patients and carers. The initial focus on shared decision-making was changed to shared problem-solving. Two factors were found in the first staff sample: shared problem-solving and shared decision-making. The structure was confirmed on the second patients' and carers' sample and an independent staff sample consisting of the first data-points for the last three years. The shared problem-solving and decision-making scale (SPSDM) demonstrated evidence of convergent and divergent validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance on longitudinal data and sensitivity to change.

    CONCLUSIONS: Shared problem-solving was easier to measure than shared decision-making in this context.

    PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Shared problem-solving is an important component of collaboration, as well as shared decision-making.

  4. Shoesmith WD, Borhanuddin AFBA, Yong Pau Lin P, Abdullah AF, Nordin N, Giridharan B, et al.
    Int J Soc Psychiatry, 2018 02;64(1):49-55.
    PMID: 29103338 DOI: 10.1177/0020764017739643
    BACKGROUND: A better understanding is needed about how people make decisions about help seeking.

    MATERIALS: Focus group and individual interviews with patients, carers, healthcare staff, religious authorities, traditional healers and community members.

    DISCUSSION: Four stages of help seeking were identified: (1) noticing symptoms and initial labelling, (2) collective decision-making, (3) spiritual diagnoses and treatment and (4) psychiatric diagnosis and treatment.

    CONCLUSION: Spiritual diagnoses have the advantage of being less stigmatising, giving meaning to symptoms, and were seen to offer hope of cure rather than just symptom control. Patients and carers need help to integrate different explanatory models into a meaningful whole.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links