32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics.

          Methods

          Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients ( N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc ( N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPS post was used.

          Results

          Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPS post (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPS post categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded.

          Conclusion

          The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPS post and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes.

          Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health). PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies. Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome. Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health). Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes. The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design. SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes. © The Author(s) 2014.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Control Preferences Scale.

              The Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was developed to measure a construct that emerged from a grounded theory of how treatment decisions are made among people with life-threatening illnesses. The control preferences construct is defined as "the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment." The CPS consists of five cards that each portrays a different role in treatment decision-making using a statement and a cartoon. These roles range from the individual making the treatment decisions, through the individual making the decisions jointly with the physician, to the physician making the decisions. The CPS involves subjects in making a series of paired comparisons to provide their total preference order over the five cards. These preference orders are analyzed using unfolding theory to determine the distribution of preferences in different populations and the effect of covariates on consumer preferences. The scale has been tested in a variety of populations, ranging from the general public to highly stressed groups. The CPS has proven to be a clinically relevant, easily administered, valid, and reliable measure of preferred roles in health-care decision-making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                7 July 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 7
                : e0132158
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
                [5 ]Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, School CAPHRI, Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Gynaecology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [8 ]Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                institute of Health Policy and Management, NETHERLANDS
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: SR AMS. Performed the experiments: SR TW GPML RFPMK HO. Analyzed the data: SR AHP PMK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: IS IVEC. Wrote the paper: SR AMS AHP PMK IS TW IVEC IMV FGZ RFPMK GPML HO. Development of questionnaire: IS. Obtained permission for Dutch validation: AMS SR. Translation of questionnaires: TW AMS IS. Recruitment of participating physicians: TW GPML RFPMK IMV. Provision of general practitioners' data: HO.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-57409
                10.1371/journal.pone.0132158
                4494856
                26151946
                11983f8b-9884-4427-9aff-705b47888656
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 13 January 2015
                : 10 June 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 7, Pages: 15
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are available through the following DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1454427 and URL: http://figshare.com/preview/_preview/1454427

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article