Health professionals’ perspectives on shared decision-making in secondary mental healthcare: a qualitative study

Chiu-Yi Lin*, Laoise Renwick, Karina Lovell

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Shared decision-making is widely recommended but has not been widely implemented in mental healthcare. There is a lack of direct evidence about health professionals’ perspectives on shared decision-making in Asian cultures, particularly Taiwan. Such knowledge is of key importance to facilitate shared decision-making. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify this issue.

Aim: To explore health professionals’ perspectives of shared decision-making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan.

Method: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used. Purposive sampling was applied to recruit health professionals. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Twenty-four health professionals were recruited. This study found the absence of shared decision-making was acceptable to them. Barriers included: powerful status of health professionals and families, patients with impaired decisional ability due to mental illness, health professionals’ lack of understanding of shared decision-making, and insufficient time. Facilitators included: awareness of patients’ right to autonomy and understanding of potential benefits of shared decision-making.

Conclusions: The study found that the absence of patient involvement in decision-making was widely reported. A discussion of barriers and facilitators is provided. Barriers and facilitators are highlighted to build a foundation for implementing shared decision-making in the future.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)709-715
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Mental Health
Issue number5
Early online date3 Jan 2022
Publication statusPublished - 2022


Dive into the research topics of 'Health professionals’ perspectives on shared decision-making in secondary mental healthcare: a qualitative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this