Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Nov;24(6):434-442.
doi: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000343.

Second Opinions in Psychiatry: A Review

Affiliations
Review

Second Opinions in Psychiatry: A Review

Sabina C Heuss et al. J Psychiatr Pract. 2018 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Although second opinions are rather restricted to the surgical disciplines, they have become more and more important to the health system in the last 20 years. The demand has been triggered by rising health costs and the economization of the field. The Internet has also made a considerable contribution to the demand for patient-initiated second opinions. Given these developments, it is surprising that second opinions have not become more important in the field of psychiatry. This article highlights the special situation of second opinions in psychiatry, discusses possible barriers to the adoption of second opinions in psychiatry, and the potential for greater use of second opinions in this field.

Objective: In psychiatry, second opinions have been neglected by the typical drivers of innovations in health care, including insurers and other commercial drivers as well as psychiatrists and patients themselves. This review identifies current barriers to widespread adoption of second opinions in psychiatric practice, discusses the benefits of second opinions that have been demonstrated in other disciplines, and outlines the potential gains to be realized through use of second opinions in psychiatry.

Methods: Literature in the area was reviewed through a search of the main medical databases. This literature review was supported by in-depth interviews with health care personnel and insurers.

Conclusions: Second opinions are rarely obtained in psychiatry and there is little literature on this subject. The stigmatization of psychiatric disorders and patients and the uniqueness of the patient-doctor relationship in psychiatry, especially in psychotherapeutic care, may pose considerable obstacles to the use of second opinions in this field. In addition, more stakeholders, such as social workers, government agencies and regulators, health care and disability insurers, and social security agencies, are involved in the mental health compared with the somatic health sector, which may make it more difficult to achieve a coordinated approach in psychiatric care. However, we have found no convincingly good reason why second opinions have not been at least discussed in psychiatry. Psychiatry could benefit from ongoing discussions concerning the outcomes of second opinions in other medical disciplines.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Grafe WR, McSherry CK, Finkel ML, et al. The Elective Surgery Second Opinion Program. Ann Surg. 1978;188:323–330. - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Dalen I, Groothoff J, Stewart R, et al. Motives for seeking a second opinion in orthopaedic surgery. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6:195–201. - PubMed
    1. Peebles R. Second opinions and cost-effectiveness: the questions continue. Bull Am Coll Surg. 1991;76:18–25. - PubMed
    1. Shmueli L, Davidovitch N, Pliskin JS, et al. Seeking a second medical opinion: composition, reasons and perceived outcomes in Israel. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017;6:67. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Australia Mental Health Act 2014. Available at: www.mhc.wa.gov.au/media/1245/mental-health-act-2014.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2018.

MeSH terms