Effectiveness of Shared Decision-Making for Elderly Depressed Minority Primary Care Patients

Technology-supported shared decision-making in chronic conditions: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe the role of patients with a chronic disease, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and technology in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), and to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM and CDSSs interventions.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies published between 2011 and 2021 were identified and screened independently by two reviewers, followed by data extraction and analysis. SDM elements and interactive styles were identified to shape the roles of patients, HCPs and technology.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles were identified and reported on 21 SDM-studies, 15 CDSS-studies, 2 studies containing both an SDM-tool and a CDSS, and 5 studies with other decision support components. SDM elements were mostly identified in SDM-tools and interactions styles were least common in the other decision support components.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients within the included RCTs mainly received information from SDM-tools and occasionally CDSSs when it concerns treatment strategies. HCPs provide and clarify information using SDM-tools and CDSSs. Technology provides interactions, which can support more active SDM. SDM-tools mostly showed evidence for positive effects on SDM outcomes, while CDSSs mostly demonstrated positive effects on clinical outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Technology-supported SDM has potential to optimize SDM when patients, HCPs and technology collaborate well together.

Healthcare providers' perception of caring for older patients with depression and physical multimorbidity: insights from a focus group study

BACKGROUND

The caretaking process for older adults with depression and physical multimorbidity is complex. Older patients with both psychiatric and physical illnesses require an integrated and comprehensive approach to effectively manage their care. This approach should address common risk factors, acknowledge the bidirectional relationship between somatic and mental health conditions, and integrate treatment strategies for both aspects. Furthermore, active engagement of healthcare providers in shaping new care processes is imperative for achieving sustainable change.

OBJECTIVE

To explore and understand the needs and expectations of healthcare providers (HCPs) concerning the care for older patients with depression and physical multimorbidity.

METHODS

Seventeen HCPs who work with the target group in primary and residential care participated in three focus group interviews. A constructivist Grounded Theory approach was applied. The results were analyzed using the QUAGOL guide.

RESULTS

Participants highlighted the importance of patient-centeredness, interprofessional collaboration, and shared decision-making in current healthcare practices. There is also a need to further emphasize the advantages and risks of technology in delivering care. Additionally, HCPs working with this target population should possess expertise in both psychiatric and somatic care to provide comprehensive care. Care should be organized proactively, anticipating needs rather than reacting to them. Healthcare providers, including a dedicated care manager, might consider collaborating, integrating their expertise instead of operating in isolation. Lastly, effective communication among HCPs, patients, and their families is crucial to ensure high-quality care delivery.

CONCLUSION

The findings stress the importance of a comprehensive approach to caring for older adults dealing with depression and physical comorbidity. These insights will fuel the development of an integrated care model that caters to the needs of this population.

User-Centered Design of a Preference-Driven Patient Activation Tool for Optimizing Depression Treatment in Integrated Primary Care Settings (The Transform DepCare Study)

BACKGROUND

Few patient engagement tools incorporate the complex patient experiences, contexts, and workflows that limit depression treatment implementation.

OBJECTIVE

Describe a user-centered design (UCD) process for operationalizing a preference-driven patient activation tool.

DESIGN

Informed by UCD and behavior change/implementation science principles, we designed a preference-driven patient activation prototype for engaging patients in depression treatment. We conducted three usability cycles using different recruitment/implementation approaches: near live/live testing in primary care waiting rooms (V1-2) and lab-based think aloud testing (V3) oversampling older, low-literacy, and Spanish-speaking patients in the community and via EHR algorithms. We elicited clinician and "heuristic" expert input.

MAIN MEASURES

We administered the system usability scale (SUS) all three cycles and pre-post V3, the patient activation measure, decisional conflict scale, and depression treatment barriers. We employed descriptive statistics and thematically analyzed observer notes and transcripts for usability constructs.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 patients, 3 clinicians, and 5 heuristic (a usability engineering method for identifying usability problems) experts participated. Among patients, 41.9% were ≥ 65 years old, 79.1% female, 23.3% Black, 62.8% Hispanic, and 55.8% Spanish-speaking and 46.5% had ≤ high school education. We described V1-3 usability (67.2, 77.3, 81.8), treatment seeking (92.3%, 87.5%, 92.9%), likelihood/comfort discussing with clinician (76.9%, 87.5%, 100.0%), and pre vs. post decisional conflict (23.7 vs. 15.2), treatment awareness (71.4% vs. 92.9%), interest in antidepressants (7.1% vs. 14.3%), and patient activation (66.8 vs. 70.9), with fewer barriers pertaining to cost/insurance, access/coordination, and self-efficacy/stigma/treatment efficacy. Key themes included digital literacy, understandability, high acceptability for aesthetics, high usefulness of patient/clinician videos, and workflow limitations. We adapted manual entry/visibility/content; added patient activation and a personalized algorithm; and proposed flexible, care manager delivery leveraging clinic screening protocols.

DISCUSSION

We provide an example of leveraging UCD to design/adapt a real-world, patient experience and workflow-aligned patient activation tool in diverse populations.

Psychosocial interventions to improve adherence in depressed and anxious older adults prescribed antidepressant pharmacotherapy: a scoping review

Medication nonadherence in depressed and anxious older adults is prevalent and associated with non-response to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Evidence-based options to improve medication adherence are limited in this population. To review the state of the literature on the types and efficacy of psychosocial interventions for improving antidepressant pharmacotherapy adherence in depressed and anxious older adults. We conducted a scoping review according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed/Medline and article references starting in 1980 up to 28 February 2023 were reviewed. Of the 710 records screened, 4 psychosocial interventions were included in the review. All studies included depressed older adults, and none included anxious older adults. Samples included racial and ethnic minorities and were primarily women. The psychosocial interventions consisted mainly of psychoeducation with usual care as the control comparison. Measures of antidepressant adherence included self-reported adherence or pill counting. Three of the four randomized controlled trials improved medication adherence rates and reduced depression symptom burden. Effective interventions exist for improving antidepressant medication adherence in depressed older adults. Improved adherence can reduce depression symptom burden. The lack of interventions for anxious older adults highlights the need to develop and deliver interventions for anxious older adults prescribed antidepressant pharmacotherapy.

Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review

Introduction

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are important tools to empower patients and integrate their preferences and values in the decision-making process. Even though patients with mental health problems have a strong interest in being more involved in decision making about their treatment, research has mainly focused on PDAs for somatic conditions. In this scoping review, we focus on patients suffering from depression and the role of PDAs for this patient group. The review offers an overview of digital and analog PDAs, their advantages and disadvantages as well as recommendations for further research and development.

Methods

A systematic search of the existing literature guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was conducted. Three electronic literature databases with the appropriate thematic focus were searched (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science). The search strategy used controlled and natural language to search for the key concepts decision aids and depression. The articles were selected in a two-step process guided by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We narratively synthetized information extracted from 40 research articles.

Results

We included 40 articles in our review. Our review revealed that there is more focus on digital PDAs in research than in clinical practice. Digitalization can enhance the benefits of PDAs by developing tools that are more efficient, interactive, and personalized. The main disadvantages of both types of PDAs for the treatment of depression are related to time, dissemination, and capacity building for the health care providers. Digital PDAs need to be regularly updated, effective strategies for their dissemination and acceptance need to be identified, and clinicians need sufficient training on how to use digital PDAs. There is more research needed to study which forms of PDAs are most appropriate for various patient groups (e.g., older adults, or patients with comorbidities), and to identify the most effective ways of PDAs' integration in the clinical workflow. The findings from our review could be well aligned with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards.

Discussion

More research is needed regarding effective strategies for the implementation of digital PDAs into the clinical workflow, ethical issues raised by the digital format, and opportunities of tailoring PDAs for diverse patient groups.

Moderators and Mediators of the Relationship of Shared Decision-Making and Satisfaction

Background:Evidence suggests that health literacy, perceived availability of information and guidance to adapt to challenges (informational support), and symptoms of depression all have the potential to mediate or moderate the relationship between patient-rated involvement in decisions and satisfaction with care. If so these could be useful targets for improving patient experience. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 130 new adult patients visiting an orthopedic surgeon over a 4-month period. All patients were asked to complete measures of satisfaction with care (21-item Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale), perceived involvement in decisions (9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire), symptoms of depression (the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Scale [PROMIS] Depression Computerized Adaptive Test [CAT]), perceived availability of information and guidance to adapt to challenges (PROMIS Informational Support CAT), and the Newest Vital Sign test of health literacy. Results: The strong correlation between satisfaction with care (ρ = 0.60, P < .001) and perceived involvement in decisions was neither mediated nor moderated by health literacy, perceived availability of information and guidance, and symptoms of depression. Conclusions: The observation that patient-rated shared decision-making is strongly related to satisfaction with an office visit, independent of health literacy, perceived support, and symptoms of depression, is consistent with evidence that various measures of patient experience tend to correlate and emphasizes the importance of the patient-clinician relationship. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective study.

Treatment Decision-Making Preferences of Older Depressed Minority Primary Care Patients

Little research examined the decision-making preferences of older, racially and ethnically diverse minority patients with untreated depression. The study's aims were to identify decision-making preferences and the characteristics associated with a more active preference in the decision-making process for general medical and depression treatment decisions. We assessed the preferred involvement in making general medical and depression treatment decisions of 201 older primary care patients with untreated depression. Linear regressions examined the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with decision-making preference for both decision types. Majority of patients preferred shared decision-making for general medical and depression treatments. Female gender was associated with a preference for active decision-making for depression treatment. For this sample older depressed patients preferred sharing the decision-making responsibilities with physicians. To improve communication and the initiation and adherence to mental health care, physicians must consider older, minority patients' preferences for involvement in the decision-making process.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Implementation of a shared decision-making training program for clinicians based on the major depressive disorder guidelines in Japan: A multi-center cluster randomized trial

Background

Although shared treatment decision-making with patients requires attention, it is not widely implemented, particularly in the field of psychiatry. The aim of this study was to assess whether a shared decision-making (SDM) training program for clinicians based on the major depressive disorder (MDD) guidelines improved the perceived involvement of the decision process for patients with MDD.

Methods

A multi-center cluster-randomized controlled intervention of a clinician training program based on the Japanese MDD guidelines using related decision aids compared to usual care was conducted among 56 clinicians from 23 institutions. A total of 124 patients with MDD were enrolled in this study. The primary outcomes were the scores of the Shared Decision Making-Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q-9) and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) after the first visit to the outpatient clinics. The secondary outcomes were patients' satisfaction, quality of life, trust in clinicians, and depressive symptoms. Additionally, we evaluated all the observed outcomes at the first and third months of follow-up.

Results

The scores of the SDM-Q-9 in the SDM training program group were significantly higher than those in the control group at the first visit. However, no significant difference in the DCS scores was found between the two groups. There was no intervention effect for secondary outcomes and the outcomes at the first- and third-month follow-up visits.

Conclusion

The clinician training program based on the Japanese MDD guidelines can be useful for implementation of SDM. Additional research is needed to confirm the efficacy of this SDM training program.

Clinical trial registration

[https://www.umin.ac.jp/], identifier [UMIN000034397].

Implementation and staff understanding of shared decision-making in the context of recovery-oriented care across US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units: a mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the understanding and practice of shared decision-making (SDM) within the context of recovery-oriented care across Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units.

DESIGN

VHA inpatient mental health units were scored on the Recovery-Oriented Acute Inpatient Scale (RAIN). Scores on the RAIN item for medication SDM were used to rank each site from lowest to highest. The top 7 and bottom 8 sites (n=15) were selected for additional analyses using a mixed-methods approach, involving qualitative interviews, observation notes and quantitative data.

SETTING

34 VHA inpatient mental health units located in every geographical region of the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

55 treatment team members.

RESULTS

Our results identified an overarching theme of 'power-sharing' that describes participants' conceptualisation and practice of medication decision-making. Three levels of power sharing emerged from both interview and observational data: (1) No power sharing: patients are excluded from treatment decisions; (2) Limited power sharing: patients are informed of treatment decisions but have limited influence on the decision-making process; and (3) Shared-power: patients and providers work collaboratively and contribute to medication decisions. Comparing interview to observational data, only observational data indicating those themes differentiate top from bottom scoring sites on the RAIN SDM item scores. All but one top scoring sites indicated shared power medication decision processes, whereas bottom sites reflected mostly no power sharing. Additionally, our findings highlight three key factors that facilitate the implementation of SDM: inclusion of veteran in treatment teams, patient education and respect for patient autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of SDM appears feasible in acute inpatient mental health units. Although most participants were well informed about SDM, that knowledge did not always translate into practice, which supports the need for ongoing implementation support for SDM. Additional contextual factors underscore the value of patients' self-determination as a guiding principle for SDM, highlighting the role of a supporting, empowering and autonomy-generating environment.

A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.

Provider Perspectives on Implementing Shared Decision Making for PTSD Treatment in VA Primary Care

Shared decision making is an important implementation "pull" strategy for increasing uptake of evidence-based mental health practices. In this qualitative study, we explored provider perspectives on implementing shared decision making at the point of mental health treatment initiation using a publicly available, patient-facing decision support tool for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 mental health providers (psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers) working in one of five VA primary care clinics. Interviewed were analyzed using thematic analysis. Provider were enthusiastic about using decision aids as a source of high quality information that could improve patient experience and confidence in treatment. However, providers had concerns about decision aid accessibility, time constraints to conduct shared decision making in-session, and patient motivation to engage in shared decision making. Providers stated they would prefer to use shared decision making with patients that they felt were most likely to follow through with treatment. While providers believed that shared decision making could improve PTSD treatment planning, they thought it most appropriate for patients with the highest levels of motivation and fewest barriers to care. These beliefs may limit widespread adoption and reflect missed opportunities to reach difficult-to-engage patients.

NICE shared decision making guidelines and mental health: challenges for research, practice and implementation

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated an ambitious effort to develop the first shared decision making guidelines. The purpose of this commentary is to identify three main concerns pertaining to the new published guidelines for shared decision making research, practice, implementation and cultural differences in mental health.

Modernizing Training in Psychotherapy Competencies With Adaptive Learning Systems: Proof of Concept

PURPOSE

This proof-of-concept study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) as a classroom adjunct to improve training bachelor of social work (BSW) students in client engagement strategies.

METHODS

We codeveloped the ITS with 11 undergraduate students and pilot tested it with six BSW students enrolled in a class on telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (tCBT). Student competencies in tCBT were assessed by expert review of role-plays. We also examined time spent using ITS and relation with competency.

RESULTS

The majority of students (81.8%) in Wave 1 and all of the students who submitted role-plays in Wave 2 passed the clinical skills role-play. Students advancing through the ITS more quickly had better tCBT competency ratings than those progressing more slowly.

DISCUSSION

One of the most challenging aspects of training is how to competently deliver evidence-based practices. ITS has the potential to streamline and scale such training.

Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis

AIM

Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness has increasingly attracted attention. However, this concept has not been comprehensively clarified. This review aimed to clarify a concept of shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, and propose an adequate definition.

METHODS

Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis was used. MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for articles written in English and published between 2010 and November 2019. The search terms were "psychiatr*" or "mental" or "schizophren*" or "depression" or "bipolar disorder", combined with "shared decision making". In total, 70 articles met the inclusion criteria. An inductive approach was used to identify themes and sub-themes related to shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness. Surrogate terms and a definition of the concept were also described.

RESULTS

Four key attributes were identified: user-professional relationship, communication process, user-friendly visualization, and broader stakeholder approach. Communication process was the densest attribute, which consisted of five phases: goal sharing, information sharing, deliberation, mutual agreement, and follow-up. The antecedents as prominent predisposing factors were long-term complex illness, power imbalance, global trend, users' desire, concerns, and stigma. The consequences included decision-related outcomes, users' changes, professionals' changes, and enhanced relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness is a communication process, involving both user-friendly visualization techniques and broader stakeholders. The process may overcome traditional power imbalance and encourage changes among both users and professionals that could enhance the dyadic relationship.

Factor Analysis and Psychometric Properties Adaption of Chinese Version of the Decisional Engagement Scale (DES-10)

OBJECTIVE

To translate and validate the DES-10 into Chinese and adapt the DES-10 among Chinese prostate cancer patients. To explore the impact of demographic data on the SDM of Chinese prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

Data were collected from December 2019 to January 2020 from four hospitals among prostatic cancer patients in Henan Province, by convenience sampling method. A demographic questionnaire, DES-10, and 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) were administered. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to test the content, construct, reliability, and concurrent validity of the translated DES-10. Then, Pearson's correlation, t-test, and analysis of variance were used to test the demographic difference of DES-10.

RESULTS

A total of 380 prostatic cancer patients completed the survey (96% response rate). The total score of DES-10 was 71.16±17.14. The Cronbach's ɑ coefficient was 0.87. Single factor structure was confirmed by exploratory factor analysis (explaining 50.14% of the variance). Model fitting indexes (RMSEA=0.07, CMIN/DF=2.92) were acceptable. The DES-10 scale showed good validity with the SDM-Q-9 as the criterion. Age, marital status, homeplace, and household monthly income could affect the shared decision-making of prostatic cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

The DES-10 was demonstrated to be a valid and reliable scale to assess the prostatic cancer patient's engagement in health care decision-making. And it is culturally appropriate for use in China. The influence of age, marital status, homeplace, and household monthly income should be considered in promoting patients' participation in shared decision-making.