Back

Perceived Factors Influencing Shared Decision-Making in Mental Health Risk Assessment and Management: A Cross-Sectional Survey with Service Users and Professionals

Ahmed, N.; Barlow, S.; Reynolds, L.; Drey, N.; Simpson, A.

2026-03-27 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.03.25.26349181 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Background: Mental health services are shifting towards person-centred care based on collaboration and shared decision making. Yet evidence indicates that these approaches may not be consistently embedded in the assessment and management of risk or safety. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey to examine perceived barriers and enablers to shared decision-making in risk assessment and management with people living with severe mental illness. Questionnaire development and data analysis were guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, a psychological framework used to identify and understand factors influencing behaviour change. Items were rated on a 5 point Likert scale. In total, 243 service users and mental health professionals completed the survey. Results: Most service users reported that risk or safety had been discussed with them, but only half felt involved in the risk assessment or management process. Two thirds reported not receiving a copy of their risk assessment or management plan. Service users strongly agreed that communication with professionals about risk and safety requires improvement, and that risk is a difficult and emotive topic to discuss. Professionals reported high motivation to involve service users but identified time constraints and service user related factors as key barriers. Principal component analysis identified four components: (1) motivation; (2) social influences and memory/decision making; (3) beliefs about consequences; and (4) team, environment and training factors. More experienced professionals reported fewer negative beliefs about consequences, such as concerns about causing distress or disengagement. Conclusion: Findings highlight the need for clearer communication, organisational support and targeted training to enhance shared decision-making in risk assessment and management practices.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
17.3%
2
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.0%
4
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
5
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
7
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.9%
9
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
10
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
13
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
16
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
17
Journal of Psychiatric Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
18
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
20
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
22
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 79%
0.6%