A psychometric study of the decisional conflict scale in surrogate decision makers

Decision Self-Efficacy and Decisional Conflict on Reintubation among Surrogates of Ventilated Patients Undergoing Planned Extubation

PURPOSE

Although the medical decision-making process can be overwhelming for some surrogates, there is a lack of understanding regarding their experiences. The objectives of this study were to examine the decision self-efficacy and decisional conflict experienced by surrogates in intensive care units (ICUs) when faced with the decision of whether to reintubate patients with respiratory failure after a planned extubation. In addition, predictors and mediators influencing these decision-making processes were identified.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional design to investigate the decision-making processes of 174 surrogates who were faced with the decision of whether to reintubate patients with respiratory failure after a planned extubation in the internal ICU of a medical center between August 2021 and February 2022. Structured questionnaires were administered to collect data on the surrogates' background information, decision self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and positive and negative affect. The patients' background information was also collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to model the data.

RESULTS

The mean decision self-efficacy score of the surrogates was 82.41 points, and 20.7% surrogates had decisional conflict scores exceeding 37.5 points, suggesting that they faced challenges in the decision-making process. Surrogates' employment status and negative affect significantly predicted their decision self-efficacy. In addition, patients' activities of daily living prior to hospitalization and the decision self-efficacy of the surrogate significantly predicted surrogate decisional conflict. The impact of surrogates' negative affect on decisional conflict was fully mediated by decision self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Surrogate decision self-efficacy mediates the relationship between negative affect and decisional conflict. Providing clinical care interventions that focus on enhancing surrogate self-efficacy and reducing negative affect can help alleviate decisional conflict in this population.

(Re)Conceptualising 'good' proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality

People who are unable to make decisions about participating in research rely on proxies to make a decision based on their wishes and preferences. However, patients rarely discuss their preferences about research and proxies find it challenging to determine what their wishes would be. While the process of informed consent has traditionally been the focus of research to improve consent decisions, the more conceptually complex area of what constitutes 'good' proxy decision-making for research has remained unexplored. Interventions are needed to improve and support proxy decision-making for research but are hampered by a lack of understanding about what constitutes decision quality in this context. A global increase in conditions associated with cognitive impairment such as dementia has led to an urgent need for more research into these conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent necessity to conduct research with large numbers of critically ill patients has made this need even more pressing. Much of the empirical research centres on the desire to improve decision accuracy, despite growing evidence that authenticity is more reflective of the aim of proxy decisions and concerns about the methodological flaws in authenticity-focused studies. Such studies also fail to take account of the impact of decision-making on proxies, or the considerable body of research on improving the quality of healthcare decisions. This paper reports a concept synthesis of the literature that was conducted to develop the first conceptualisation of 'good' proxy decisions about research participation. Elements of decision quality were identified across three stages of decision-making: proxy preparedness for decision-making which includes knowledge and understanding, and values clarification and preference elicitation; the role of uncertainty, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret in the decision-making process; and preference linked outcomes and their effect. This conceptualisation provides an essential first step towards the future development of interventions to enhance the quality of proxy decision-making and ensure proxy decisions represent patients' values and preferences.

Decisional Satisfaction, Regret, and Conflict Among Parents of Infants with Neurologic Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To characterize decisional satisfaction, regret, and conflict among parents of critically ill infants with neurologic conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled parents of infants with neurologic conditions in the intensive care unit (ICU). Hospital discharge surveys included the validated Family Satisfaction with the ICU (FS-ICU) decision making subscale, Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). We defined high satisfaction with decision making as an FS-ICU score ≥75, high decisional regret/conflict as DRS/DCS score >25, and within-couple disagreement as a difference of at least 25 points between scores.

RESULTS

We enrolled 61 parents of 40 infants (n = 40 mothers, n = 21 fathers); 35 mothers and 15 fathers completed surveys. Most mothers reported high satisfaction with decision making (27 of 35; 77%) and low decision regret (28 of 35; 80%); 40% (14 of 35) reported high decisional conflict. Mothers and fathers reported higher decisional conflict in the domains of uncertainty and values clarity compared with the domain of effective decision making (Bonferroni-corrected P < .05). There were no differences in decision outcomes between paired mothers and fathers; however, within any given couple, there were numerous instances of disagreement (7 of 15 for decision regret and 5 of 15 for decisional conflict).

CONCLUSIONS

Many parents experience decisional conflict even if they ultimately have high satisfaction and low regret, underscoring the need for decision aids targeting uncertainty and values clarity. Couples frequently experience different levels of decisional regret and conflict.

Effectiveness of shared decision-making intervention in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of shared decision-making (SDM) intervention among patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) in terms of decision self-efficacy, control preferences, SDM process, decision satisfaction, and conflict.

METHODS

A total of 130 outpatients with LDDs recruited from orthopedic or rehabilitation clinics were randomly assigned to the SDM intervention (n = 67) or comparison (n = 63) groups. Patients in the intervention group received decision aids (DAs) with decision coaching and those in controlled group received standard educational materials from a health educator. The primary outcome was decision self-efficacy, and secondary outcomes were control preference, SDM process, conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

The SDM intervention significantly improved decision self-efficacy (mean difference [MD] = 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.5, partial η² = 0.05) and reduced conflict (MD = -7.0, 95% CI: -12.2 to -1.9, partial η² = 0.06), especially in patients without family involvement, compared with the health education group. However, no significant between-group differences were observed in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

SDM intervention improved SDM self-efficacy and reduced conflict in patients with LDDs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate DAs and decision coaching in SDM conversations. SDM intervention seems to engage patients in decision-making, especially those without family involvement.

The Effect of a Complementary Therapy Education Seminar on Support Persons of Individuals with Cancer

Objectives: Complementary therapy (CT) use is prevalent among individuals living with cancer, who often consult family and friends (i.e., support persons) in making decisions about CT. This study examines the effect of an education seminar for adult cancer patients and support persons on the support persons' use, knowledge, and decision-making processes related to CT. Design: A patient education seminar that included support persons was developed and evaluated as part of a CT decision support research program. Survey data were collected before and after the education seminar to examine its impact on support persons' knowledge and use of CT, as well as their engagement in the CT decision-making process. Setting: The study was conducted in Western Canada. Subjects: 62 adult support persons. Interventions: Participants attended a 4-h CT education seminar at one in four provincial cancer centers. The seminar provided recommendations regarding how to make informed decisions about CT, where to find credible information, and key issues to consider to avoid potential risks of CT use. The evidence related to popular CT was also reviewed. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was support persons' CT knowledge. Secondary outcomes included CT use, information-seeking behavior, decision self-efficacy, decision conflict, and distress. Results: A significant increase in support persons' CT knowledge was observed, as well as improved confidence in CT decision making. There was no significant difference in participants' CT use following the education seminar. Most indicated they would continue to locate information about CT using the Internet. A significant decrease in support persons' decisional conflict was reported; however, there were no significant change in distress related to CT decision making. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of including support persons in patient education related to CT and the positive impact on their knowledge and treatment decision-making processes. No significant change in CT use, information seeking behavior and distress related to CT decisions, however, was observed in the study.

Decisional Conflict During Major Medical Treatment Decision-making: a Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Both patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.

DESIGN

Two-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.

PARTICIPANTS

Address-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.

MAIN MEASURES

We asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.

KEY RESULTS

About 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

The need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of the Decision Regret Scale

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the decision regret scale (DRSc).

Methods

The data of 704 patients who completed the DRSc were used for the analyses. We evaluated the construct, convergent/discriminant, and known-group validity; internal consistency and test-retest reliability; and the item invariance of the DRSc. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to confirm the optimal cutoff point of the scale.

Results

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that a one-factor model fits the data. The internal consistency (α = 0.74) and test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.71] of the DRSc were acceptable. The DRSc demonstrated unidimensionality and invariance for use across the sexes. It was confirmed that an optimal cutoff point of 25 could discriminate between patients with high and low decisional regret during clinical practice.

Conclusion

The DRSc is a parsimonious instrument that can be used to measure the uncertainty inherent in medical decisions. It can be employed to provide knowledge, offer support, and elicit patient preferences in an attempt to promote shared decision-making.

Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review

Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation searches and keyword searches. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data. Dyads independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative syntheses and calculated average or median DCS scores. Results. We included 246 articles reporting on 253 studies. DCS scores ranged from 2.4 to 79.7 out of 100. Highest baseline DCS scores were for care planning (44.8 ± 8.9, median = 47.0) and treatment decisions (32.5 ± 12.6, median = 31.9), in contexts of primary care (40.6 ± 18.3), and geriatrics (39.8 ± 11.2). Baseline scores were high among decision makers who were ill (33.2 ± 14.1, median = 30.2) or making decisions for themselves (33.4 ± 13.8, median = 32.0). Total DCS scores <25 out of 100 were associated with implementing decisions. Without DESIs, DCS scores tended to increase shortly after decision making (>37.4). After DESI use, DCS scores decreased short-term but increased or remained the same long-term (>6 months). Conclusions. DCS scores were highest at baseline and decreased after decision making. DESIs decreased decisional conflict immediately after decision making. The largest improvements after DESIs were in decision makers who were ill or made decisions for themselves. Further meta-analyses are needed for decision type, contexts, and interventions to inform hypotheses about the expected effects of DESIs, the best timing for measurement, and interpretation of DCS scores.