Shared decision-making is defined as a collaborative process where a clinician works with a patient to help them decide on their course of treatment. This model of treatment may be utilized as a rehabilitation treatment for victims of domestic violence. The possibility that these therapies will improve personal meaning, happiness, and quality of life rises when consumers have the option to select interventions that suit their preferences and recovery (Schauer et al., 2007). Self-determination and group decision-making are crucial aspects in terms of working with victims of domestic violence directly. When collaborating with other professionals in the department, client-and-family-centered mental recovery from domestic violence with services and treatments should be expected. Moreover, planning and implementing mental health care should guarantee that consumers and families of children with mental health issues access relevant and professional treatment alternatives and providers.
In shared decision-making, a patient and a healthcare provider collaborate to make a choice regarding their treatment. In the case of domestic violence, shared decision-making might improve over expertise-driven decision-making because it involves the patient discussing alternatives, its advantages, and drawbacks and considers the patient’s beliefs, preferences, and circumstances (Schauer et al., 2007). Additionally, shared decision-making enhances patient knowledge and risk perception accuracy more than expertise-driven decision-making while lowering decisional conflict, the feeling of ignorance, and the inappropriate use of treatments.
Problems for the victims of domestic violence in using a shared decision-making model are associated with the struggle to make decisions. As the clients cannot predict how they will cope with the treatment, it is challenging to value outcomes, so the abundance of options could overwhelm them (Schauer et al., 2007). Meanwhile, the possible problem for practitioners is doubting the capacity of clients’ health consumers to make logical and effective treatment outcomes. Schauer et al. (2007) suggest that if issues with shared decision-making treatment occur, the critical step for elimination is persuading the client to accept expertise-driven decision-making treatment. Moreover, the problems could also be minimized by developing new tools and protocols to facilitate shared decision-making, using existing tools and protocols to facilitate shared decision-making, and providing consumers and practitioners with decision aids.
To sum up, shared decision-making has some advantages over expertise-driven decision-making because it considers patients’ personal preferences. At the same time, this approach should be applied with utter caution when working with people who suffer from domestic violence, as there are possible risks.
References
Schauer, C., Everett, A., & del Vecchio, P. (2007). Promoting the value and practice of shared decision-making in mental health care. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31(1), 54-61.