Different Perspectives of Clinicians and Patients with Severe Mental Illness on Motivation for Treatment.

The present study assessed motivation for engaging in treatment as rated by clinicians (n = 57) and patients with severe mental illness (SMI, n = 294) using measures based on three different motivation theories. Questionnaires were derived from self-determination theory, the transtheoretical model and the integral model of treatment motivation. It was investigated to which extent clinicians of patients with SMI were able to estimate their patient's perspective on motivation for engaging in treatment, to which extent they agreed on the patient's motivation and which factors were associated with estimation and agreement on treatment motivation. It was found that clinicians were poorly to moderately capable of estimating their patient's type of motivation and readiness for change. Further, agreement on the level of motivation between patients and clinicians was moderate. These findings were consistent across diagnostic groups (psychotic and personality disorders). A higher quality therapeutic relationship was generally associated with higher clinician-rated motivation. The patient's ethnicity and socially desirable responding were factors that differentiated between scales of different motivation theories. It is concluded that patients with SMI and their clinicians have different perceptions on the patient's motivation for engaging in psychiatric treatment, regardless of the theoretical framework that is used to measure motivation. The findings imply that a negotiated approach is needed where both perceptions of clinicians and patients on motivation for treatment are considered to ensure effective mental health interventions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Clinicians show poor to moderate capability in estimating how patients perceive their motivation for engaging in treatment, especially so when the patient's motives revolve around feelings of shame and guilt. Clinicians generally give higher motivation ratings for patients where they experience a higher quality therapeutic relationships with, whereas-depending on the scale that is used to measure motivation-they give lower ratings to patients who respond in socially desirable ways and to ethnic minority patients. As patients with SMI and their clinicians have different perceptions on the patient's motivation for engaging in psychiatric treatment (regardless of the theoretical framework that is used to assess motivation), this implies that a negotiated approach is needed where both perceptions of clinicians and patients on motivation for treatment are considered to ensure effective mental health interventions.

Motivation and treatment engagement intervention trial (MotivaTe-IT): the effects of motivation feedback to clinicians on treatment engagement in patients with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Treatment disengagement and non-completion poses a major problem for the successful treatment of patients with severe mental illness. Motivation for treatment has long been proposed as a major determinant of treatment engagement, but exact mechanisms remain unclear. This current study serves three purposes: 1) to determine whether a feedback intervention based on the patients' motivation for treatment is effective at improving treatment engagement (TE) of severe mentally ill patients in outpatient psychiatric treatment, 2) to gather insight into motivational processes and possible mechanisms regarding treatment motivation (TM) and TE in this patient population and 3) to determine which of three theories of motivation is most plausible for the dynamics of TM and TE in this population. METHODS/DESIGN: The Motivation and Treatment Engagement Intervention Trial (MotivaTe-IT) is a multi-center cluster randomized trial investigating the effectiveness of feedback generated by clinicians regarding their patients' treatment motivation upon the patients' TE. The primary outcome is the patients' TE. Secondary outcomes are TM, psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Patients whose clinicians generate monthly motivation feedback (additional to treatment as usual) will be compared to patients who receive treatment as usual. An estimated 350 patients, aged 18 to 65 years, with psychotic disorders and/or severe personality disorders will be recruited from outpatient community mental health care. The randomization will be performed by a computerized randomization program, with an allocation ratio of 1:1 (team vs. team or clinician vs. clinician) and patients, but not clinicians, will be blind to treatment allocation at baseline assessment. Due to the nature of the trial, follow-up assessment can not be blinded. DISCUSSION: The current study can provide important insights regarding motivational processes and the way in which motivation influences the treatment engagement and clinical outcomes. The identification of possible mechanisms through which changes in the outcomes occur, offers a tool for the development of more effective future interventions to improve TM and TE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NTR2968.