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.
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.
METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study with university students as participants. Intervention group participants were instructed to complete online questionnaires which covered basic demographics and instruments assessing depression, anxiety, stress, mindfulness, psychological flexibility, and fear of COVID-19 before and after the one-hour intervention. The control group also completed before and after questionnaires and were subsequently crossed over to the intervention group. Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess time*group effects.
RESULTS: 118 participants were involved in this study. There were significant differences in anxiety (F(1,116) = 34.361, p < 0.001, partial eta-squared = 0.229) and psychological flexibility between the two groups (F(1,116) = 11.010, p = 0.001, partial eta-squared = 0.087), while there were no differences in depression, stress, mindfulness, or fear of COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study corroborate the efficacy of online single-session mindfulness therapy as a viable short-term psychological intervention under financial and time constraints. Since university students are in the age group with the highest incidence of depressive and anxiety disorders, it is crucial to utilize resources to address as many students as possible to ensure maximum benefit.