Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity

Shared decision-making in physiotherapy: a cross-sectional study of patient involvement factors and issues in Japan

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine education has not focused on how clinicians involve patients in decision-making. Although shared decision-making (SDM) has been investigated to address this issue, there are insufficient data on SDM in physiotherapy. This study aimed to clarify the issues concerning patient involvement in Japan, and to examine whether SDM is related to perceptions of patient involvement in decision-making.

METHODS

The study participants were recruited from among acute and sub-acute inpatients and community residents receiving physiotherapy outpatient care, day care, and/or home rehabilitation. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was used to measure the patients' involvement in decision-making. The nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to measure SDM. In analysis I, we calculated the weighted kappa coefficient to examine the congruence in the CPS between the patients' actual and preferred roles. In analysis II, we conducted a logistic regression analysis using two models to examine the factors of patient involvement.

RESULTS

Analysis I included 277 patients. The patients' actual roles were as follows: most active (4.0%), active (10.8%), collaborative (24.6%), passive (35.0%), and most passive (25.6%). Their preferred roles were: most active (3.3%), active (18.4%), collaborative (39.4%), passive (24.5%), and most passive (14.4%). The congruence between actual and preferred roles by the kappa coefficient was 0.38. Analysis II included 218 patients. The factors for patient involvement were the clinical environment, the patient's preferred role, and the SDM-Q-9 score.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients in Japan indicated a low level of decision-making involvement in physiotherapy. The patients wanted more active involvement than that required in the actual decision-making methods. The physiotherapist's practice of SDM was revealed as one of the factors related to perceptions of patient involvement in decision-making. Our results demonstrated the importance of using SDM for patient involvement in physiotherapy.

Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment

Several approaches to and definitions of 'shared decision making' (SDM) exist, which makes measurement challenging. Recently, a skills network approach was proposed, which conceptualizes SDM competence as an organized network of interacting SDM skills. With this approach, it was possible to accurately predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from the patients' assessments of the physician's SDM skills. The aim of this study was to assess whether using the skills network approach allows to predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from their self-reported SDM skills. We conducted a secondary data analysis of an observational study, in which outpatient care physicians rated their use of SDM skills with the physician version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc) during consultations with chronically ill adult patients. Based on the estimated association of each skill with all other skills, an SDM skills network for each physician was constructed. Network parameters were used to predict observer-rated SDM competence, which was determined from audio-recorded consultations using three widely used measures (OPTION-12, OPTION-5, Four Habits Coding Scheme). In our study, 28 physicians rated consultations with 308 patients. The skill 'deliberating the decision' was central in the population skills network averaged across physicians. The correlation between parameters of the skills networks and observer-rated competence ranged from 0.65 to 0.82 across analyses. The use and connectedness of the skill 'eliciting treatment preference of the patient' showed the strongest unique association with observer-rated competence. Thus, we found evidence that processing SDM skill ratings from the physicians' perspective according to the skills network approach offers new theoretically and empirically grounded opportunities for the assessment of SDM competence. A feasible and robust measurement of SDM competence is essential for research on SDM and can be applied for evaluating SDM competence during medical education, for training evaluation, and for quality management purposes. [A plain language summary of the study is available at https://osf.io/3wy4v.].

Making shared decisions with older men selecting treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH): a pilot randomized trial

Background

Making high-quality decisions when selecting treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) requires a shared decision-making approach. However, older people with lower health literacy face barriers. The pilot study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of recruiting participants and evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level intervention on decision quality for the treatment of LUTS/BPH.

Method

In this 2-arm, randomized controlled trial, multi-ethnic Asian men aged ≥ 50 years with moderate or severe symptoms (IPSS ≥ 8 and/or QOL ≥ 3) and physicians were recruited at a Singapore public primary care clinic. Men were randomized to either physicians trained in shared decision-making and used a pictorial patient-reported symptom score (Visual Analogue Uroflowmetry Score) during the consultation or to physicians untrained in shared decision-making who did not use the score. Decision quality was measured using SDMQ-9 scores from men and their physicians after the consultation.

Results

60 men (intervention [n = 30], control [n = 30]) receiving care from 22 physicians were recruited. Men’s mean age was 70 ± 9 years: 87% were Chinese, 40% had no formal education, and 32% were of lower socioeconomic status. No difference in decision quality from the men’s nor their physicians’ perspectives was noted [for men: mean score = 70.8 (SD 20.3) vs. 59.5 (SD 22.4); adjusted p = 0.352] [for physicians: mean score = 78.1 (SD 14.1) vs. 73.2 (SD 19.8); adjusted p > 0.999].

Conclusion

It was feasible to recruit the intended participants. There was no difference in decision quality between men who used shared decision-making and usual care for the treatment of LUTS/BPH.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00519-x.

Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): Validation of the Italian Version in a Large Psychiatric Clinical Sample

OBJECTIVE

The nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is one of the most frequently used tools for assessing patients' involvement in medical decision-making, but so far, it not been validated in Italian. We aimed to validate the Italian version of the SDM-Q-9 in a clinical sample of patients suffering from major psychiatric disorders.

METHOD

We involved 307 consecutive patients affected by major psychiatric disorders (including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, affective disorders and eating disorders) in a real-world outpatient clinical setting. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the latent structure of the SDM-Q-9. Cronbach's alpha and correlations between the SDM-Q-9 and the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale were calculated to measure internal consistency and convergent validity respectively.

RESULTS

The final sample was made up of 289 participants (response rate 94.1%) who completed the assessment. CFA confirmed the unidimensional structure as in the original version (χ2/df= 1.69; CFI= 0.98; TLI= 0.97; RMSEA= 0.05; SRMR= 0.08). Internal consistency of the total scale was Cronbach's α = .86. Regarding construct validity, we found several correlations between the SDM-Q-9 and OPTION scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the Italian version of SDM-Q-9 performs well if compared to other languages validated versions, so it is a useful patient-centred measure to assess the involvement in medical decision-making (SDM) of patients from clinical samples from the Italian-speaking population.

Validation of a Surgical Objective Structured Clinical Examination (S-OSCE) Using Convergent, Divergent, And Trainee-Based Assessments of Fidelity

OBJECTIVE

Describe the validation of a surgical objective structured clinical examination (S-OSCE) for the purpose of competency assessment based on the Royal College of Canada's Can-MEDS framework.

DESIGN

A surgical OSCE was developed to evaluate the management of common orthopedic surgical problems. The scores derived from this S-OSCE were compared to Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE), a validated entrustability assessment, to establish convergent validity. The S-OSCE scores were compared to Orthopedic In-Training Examination (OITE) scores to evaluate divergent validity. Resident evaluations of the clinical encounter with a standardized patient and the operative procedure were scored on a 10-point Likert scale for fidelity.

SETTING

A tertiary level academic teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

21 postgraduate year 2 to 5 trainees of a 5-year Canadian orthopedic residency program creating 160 operative case performances for review.

RESULTS

There were 5 S-OSCE days, over a 4-year period (2016-2019) encompassing a variety of surgical procedures. Performance on the S-OSCE correlated strongly with the O-SCORE (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.88), and a linear regression analysis correlated moderately with year of training (R² = 0.5345). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the S-OSCE and OITE scores was 0.57. There was a significant increase in the average OITE score after the introduction of the surgical OSCE. Resident fidelity ratings were available from 16 residents encompassing 8 different surgical cases. The average score for the overall simulation (8.0±1.6) was significantly higher than the cadaveric surgical simulation (6.5 ± 0.8) (p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The S-OSCE scores correlate strongly with an established form of assessment demonstrating convergent validity. The correlation between the S-OSCE and OITE scores was less, demonstrating divergent validity. Although residents rank the overall simulation highly, the fidelity of the cadaveric simulation may need improvement. Administration of a surgical OSCE can be used to evaluate preoperative and intraoperative decision making and complement other forms of assessment.

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations.

METHODS

Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects.

RESULTS

The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation.

METHODS

In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad.

RESULTS

Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho=-0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them.

CONCLUSION

Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options.

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

Shared decision-making in general practice from a patient perspective. A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess patient involvement in terms of shared decision-making in general practice from the perspectives of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (or both).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) ranging from 0 to 5 (best).

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Patients diagnosed with either T2DM and/or COPD were asked to focus on their most recent consultation in general practice concerning their T2DM or lung disease. Responders were approached through the Danish Diabetes Association and Danish Lung Association.

RESULTS

The sample included 468 responders. Mean scores for the total sample were between 3.3 and 4.2. The overall mean score for all items was 3.7. The highest overall mean score was for patients with T2DM, whereas the lowest overall mean score was for patients having both T2DM and COPD. Furthermore, we observed a slightly lower overall mean score for women compared to men and for those younger than 65 years compared to those aged 65 years or older.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients are involved in shared decision-making in general practice Minor nuances were found because patients with COPD were less involved in shared decision-making compared to patients with T2DM. Similarly, younger patients and women were less involved than older patients and men.

A Preference-Sensitive Online Instrument to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Pilot Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

A preference-sensitive instrument for women with pelvic organ prolapse was developed to increase shared decision-making. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to measure the effectiveness of the instrument. A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted at three Danish gynecological clinics to assess feasibility through recruitment rates, per-protocol use and women's perception of (1) support for decision-making, (2) shared decision-making (Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire), and (3) satisfaction with their decisions. In addition, a focus group interview with participating gynecologists (five gynecologists) was conducted. We invited 226 women and recruited 46 (20%). The most common reason (45%) for nonparticipation was overlooking the invitation in their online public mailbox. Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire showed high data completeness (96%) but indicated a ceiling effect. Women felt the developed instrument supported their decision-making and more so if it was used interactively during consultations. Despite finding the instrument generally useful, gynecologists tended to apply the instrument inconsistently and not per protocol (41%), and some used it as a template for all consultations. This pilot study indicates that recruitment methods, for a future randomized controlled trial, for example, nurse-led preconsultations, need reconsideration due to low recruitment rates and inefficient per-protocol use. In a future randomized controlled trial, cluster randomization should avoid the carryover effect bias.

Shared Decision Making: The 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire Does Not Discriminate Between Surgeons

Purpose

To determine if shared decision making (SDM) scores vary between individual otolaryngologists in a large specialty clinic. 

Methods

Consecutive patients that consented to surgery were surveyed using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), a validated scale for SDM. Demographic details included the respondent's age, gender, education level, marital status, whether the consent was for themselves or their child, whether surgery was for malignancy, and surgery being performed. Scores were evaluated for all demographic variables, as well as individual surgeons, surgeons' gender, age category, and subspecialty.

Results

A total of 233 patients completed the surveys. No significant differences were found among individual and total scores for SDM when compared among or between patient demographics (p > 0.05). A total of 10 surgeons for whom five or more SDM-Q-9s were completed were included in the study. No significant difference was found when SDM was evaluated for surgeon characteristics as well (p > 0.05). 

Conclusion

SDM scores do not vary between these otolaryngologists.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

BACKGROUND

Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients' and observers' ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item "observing patient involvement" score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient).

RESULTS

Agreement was low between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers' ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients' ratings using either SDM-Q9 (r_pb = -0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients (r_pb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers' OPTION-5 scores and patients' ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated (r_φ = 0.33; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was moderate to no alignment between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: Analysis from a cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine if two encounter conversation aids for early-stage breast cancer surgery increased observed and patient-reported shared decision making (SDM) compared with usual care and if observed and patient-reported SDM were associated.

METHODS

Surgeons in a cluster randomized trial at four cancer centers were randomized to use an Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, or usual care. We used bivariate statistics, linear regression, and multilevel models to evaluate the influence of trial arm, patient socioeconomic status and health literacy on observed SDM (via OPTION-5) and patient-reported SDM (via collaboRATE).

RESULTS

From 311 recordings, OPTION-5 scores were 73/100 for Option Grid (n = 40), 56.3/100 for Picture Option Grid (n = 144), and 41.0/100 for usual care (n = 127; p < 0.0001). Top collaboRATE scores were 81.6 % for Option Grid, 80.0 % for Picture Option Grid, and 56.4 % for usual care (p < 0.001). Top collaboRATE scores correlated with an 8.60 point (95 %CI 0.66, 13.7) higher OPTION-5 score (p = 0.008) with no correlation in the multilevel analysis. Patients of lower socioeconomic status had lower OPTION-5 scores before accounting for clustering.

CONCLUSIONS

Both conversation aids led to meaningfully higher observed and patient-reported SDM. Observed and patient-reported SDM were not strongly correlated.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare providers could implement these conversation aids in real-world settings.

A skills network approach to physicians' competence in shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Measurement of physicians' competence in shared decision making (SDM) remains challenging with frequent disagreement between assessment methods.

OBJECTIVE

To conceptualize and measure physicians' SDM competence as an organized network of behavioural skills and to determine whether processing patient-reported data according to this model can be used to predict observer-rated competence.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of an observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Primary and specialty outpatient care physicians and consecutively recruited adult patients with a chronic condition who faced a treatment decision with multiple acceptable choices.

MEASURES

Network parameters constructed from patients' assessment of physicians' SDM skills as measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and observer-rated SDM competence of physicians measured by three widely used observer-rated instruments.

RESULTS

29 physicians (12 female, 17 male; mean age 50.3 years) recruited 310 patients (59.4% female, 40.6% male; mean age 54.0 years) facing a decision mainly regarding type 2 diabetes (36.4%), chronic back pain (32.8%) or depressive disorder (26.8%). Although most investigated skills were interrelated, elicitation of the patient's treatment preferences showed the strongest associations with the other skills. Network parameters of this skill were also decisive in predicting observer-rated competence. Correlation between predicted competence scores and observer-rated measurements ranged from 0.710 to 0.785.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizing physicians' SDM competence as a network of interacting skills enables the measurement of observer-rated competence using patient-reported data. In addition to theoretical implications for defining and training medical competences, the findings open a new way to measure physicians' SDM competence under routine conditions.

Measuring shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography using cross-sectional surveys in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To describe and measure the shared decision-making (SDM) experience, including goal-setting experiences, from the perspective of patients and providers in diverse community-rehabilitation settings.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal surveys.

SETTING

13 primary level-of-care community-rehabilitation sites in diverse areas varying in geography, patient population and provider discipline341 adult, English-speaking patient-participants, and 66 provider-participants.

MEASURES

Alberta Shared decision-maKing Measurement Instrument (dyadic tool measuring SDM), WatLX (outpatient rehabilitation experience) and demographic questionnaire. Survey packages distributed at two timepoints (T0=recruitment; T1=3 months later).

RESULTS

We found that among 341 patient-provider dyads, 26.4% agreed that the appointment at recruitment involved high-quality SDM. Patient perceptions of goal-setting suggested that 19.6% of patients did not set a goal for their care, and only 11.4% set goals in functional language that tied directly to an activity/role/responsibility that was meaningful to their life. Better SDM was clinically associated with higher total family income (p=0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence for the importance of SDM and goal setting in community rehabilitation. Among patients, lower ratings of SDM corresponded with less recognition of their preferences. Actionable strategies include supporting financially vulnerable patients in realising SDM through training of providers to make extra space for such patients to share their preferences and better preparing patients to articulate their preferences. We recommend more research into strategies that advance highly functional goal setting with patients, and that lessen survey ceiling effects.

How to measure person-centred practice - An analysis of reviews of the literature

BACKGROUND

Facilitation and collaboration differentiates person-centred practice (PcP) from biomedical practice. In PcP, a person-centred consultation requires clinicians to juggle three processes: facilitation, clinical reasoning and collaboration. How best to measure PcP in these processes remains a challenge.

AIM

To assess the measurement of facilitation and collaboration in selected reviews of PcP instruments.

METHODS

Ovid Medline and Google Scholar were searched for review articles evaluating measurement instruments of patient-centredness or person-centredness in the medical consultation.

RESULTS

Six of the nine review articles were selected for analysis. Those articles considered the psychometric properties and rigour of evaluation of reviewed instruments. Mostly, the articles did not find instruments with good evidence of reliability and validity. Evaluations in South Africa rendered poor psychometric properties. Tools were often not transferable to other socio-cultural-linguistic contexts, both with and without adaptation.

CONCLUSION

The multiplicity of measurement tools is a product of many dimensions of person-centredness, which can be approached from many perspectives and in many service scenarios inside and outside the medical consultation. Extensive research into the myriad instruments found no single valid and reliable measurement tool that can be recommended for general use. The best hope for developing one is to focus on a specific scenario, conduct a systematic literature review, combine the best items from existing tools, involve multiple disciplines and test the tool in real-life situations.

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires

BACKGROUND

Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter.

OBJECTIVE

To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility.

METHODS

A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians.

RESULTS

We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains.

CONCLUSIONS

We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.

Romanian version of SDM-Q-9 validation in Internal Medicine and Cardiology setting: a multicentric cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more and more important for the patient-physician interaction. There has not been a study in Romania evaluating patients' point of view in the SDM process yet. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the psychometric parameters of the translated Romanian version of SDM-Q-9.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentric cross-sectional study was performed comprising eight recruitment centers. The sample consisted of in- and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units for treatment for atrial fibrillation or collagen diseases. Furthermore, patients who were members of Autoimmune Disease Patient Society were able to participate via an online survey. All participants completed the Romanian translated SDM-Q-9.

RESULTS

Altogether, 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The Romanian version had good internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficient of 0.96.) Corrected item correlations were good ranging from 0.64 to 0.89 with low corrected item correlations for item 1 and item 7. PCA found a one-factorial solution (similar with previous reports) but the first item had the lowest loading.

CONCLUSION

SDM-Q-9 is a useful tool for evaluation and improvement in health care that was validated in Romania and can be used in clinical setting in this country.

Is There a Relationship between Shared Decision Making and Breast Cancer Patients' Trust in Their Medical Oncologists?

Background. Adjuvant systemic treatment for early stage breast cancer significantly reduces the risk of mortality but is associated with side effects, reducing patients’ quality of life. Decisions about adjuvant treatment are preference sensitive and are thus ideally suited to a shared decision making (SDM) approach. Whether and how SDM affects patients’ trust in their oncologist is currently unknown. We investigated the association between patients’ trust in their oncologist and 1) observed level of SDM in the consultation, 2) congruence between patients’ preferred and perceived level of participation, and 3) patient and oncologist characteristics. Methods. Decision consultations (n = 101) between breast cancer patients and their medical oncologist were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients’ trust in their oncologist was measured using the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS). The observed level of SDM was scored using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement In Decision Making scale (OPTION-12), preferred level of participation with the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived level of participation with an open question in telephonic interviews. Results. The average TiOS score was high overall (mean [SD] = 4.1 [.56]; range, 2.6–5.0). Low levels of SDM were observed (mean [SD] = 16 [11.6]; range, 2–56). Neither observed nor perceived level of participation in SDM was associated with trust. Patients’ preferred and perceived role in decision making was incongruent in almost 50% of treatment decisions. Congruence was not related to trust. A larger tumor size (β = 4.5, P = 0.03) and the use of a risk prediction model during the consultation (β = 4.1, P = 0.04) were associated with stronger trust. Conclusion. Patients reported strong trust in their oncologist. While low levels of SDM were observed, SDM was not associated with trust. These findings suggest it may not be necessary to worry about negative consequences for trust of using SDM or risk prediction models in oncological consultations. Considering the increased emphasis on implementing SDM, it is important to further explore how SDM affects trust in clinical practice.

Characteristics of shared decision making in Romania from the patient perspective: A cross-sectional multicentric study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is very important from patients' perspective. This process has not yet been evaluated in Romania. The study aims to evaluate SDM from the patients' perspective and to evaluate patients' characteristics that associate with SDM.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional multicentric study comprising eight recruitment centres was performed. Inpatients and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units treating autoimmune diseases or atrial fibrillation were included. Another sample consisted of members of the Autoimmune Disease Patient Society, who completed an online anonymous questionnaire. All participants completed the Romanian translated version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), as these samples were used for the validation of this questionnaire, too. Patients had to refer to the visit in which the decision concerning the antithrombotic treatment was taken (atrial fibrillation patients), or the immunosuppressive treatment was last time changed (autoimmune disease patients). Ordinal regression having the total SDM score as dependent variable was used.

RESULTS

A total of 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The median score for SDM was 34 of 45, but it differed between hospital completion -39/45 and online completion (anonymous) -20/45 (P < .001). Patients with higher education were influenced most by the setting, giving the best marks in hospital and low marks online, while those with lower education gave lower marks in both settings. In ordinal regression with SDM score as dependent variable, hospital completion of the questionnaire (OR = 9.5, 95% confidence interval, 5.69-16), collagen disease diagnosis (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), and immunosuppressive treatment (OR = 2.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.26) were independent predictors.

CONCLUSION

In our study, full anonymity was associated with significantly lower scores for the SDM process. The patients with higher education were most influenced by this condition, while those with the lowest education were the most critical.

Biopsychosocial and clinical characteristics in patients with resected breast and colon cancer at the beginning and end of adjuvant treatment

Background

The aim of this study was to analyze biopsychosocial factors affecting how patients cope with cancer and adjuvant treatment and to appraise psychological distress, coping, perceived social support, quality of life and SDM before and after adjuvant treatment in breast cancer patients compared to colon cancer patients.

Methods

NEOcoping is a national, multicenter, cross-sectional, prospective study. The sample comprised 266 patients with colon cancer and 231 with breast cancer. The instruments used were the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (Mini-MAC), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Patient (SDM-Q-9) and Physician’s (SDM-Q-Doc), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ).

Results

Breast cancer patients reacted worse to the diagnosis of cancer with more symptoms of anxiety, depression, and somatization, and were less satisfied with their involvement than those with colon cancer (p = 0.003). Participants with colon cancer were older and had more physical symptoms and functional limitations at the beginning of adjuvant treatment, while there were scarcely any differences between the two groups at the end of adjuvancy, at which time both groups suffered greater psychological and physical effects and scored lower on coping strategies, except for anxious preoccupation.

Conclusions

Breast cancer patients need more information and involvement of the oncologist in shared decision-making, as well as and more medical and psychological support when beginning adjuvant treatment. Both breast and colon cancer patients may require additional psychological care at the end of adjuvancy.

Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes

Background. There is a growing need for valid shared decision-making (SDM) measures. We aimed to determine whether the items of extant SDM observer-based coding schemes assess the 4 key elements of SDM. Methods. Items of SDM coding schemes were extracted and categorized. Except for the 4 key elements of SDM (fostering choice awareness, informing about options, discussing patient preferences, and making a decision), (sub)categories were created inductively. Two researchers categorized items independently and in duplicate. Results. Five of 12 coding schemes assessed all 4 SDM elements. Seven schemes did not measure “fostering choice awareness,” and 3 did not measure “discussing patient preferences.” Seventy of 194 items (36%) could not be classified into one of the key SDM elements. Items assessing key SDM elements most often assessed “informing about options” (n = 57/124, 46%). Conclusion. Extant SDM coding schemes often do not assess all key SDM elements and have a strong focus on information provision while other crucial elements of SDM are underrepresented. Caution is therefore needed in reporting and interpreting the resulting SDM scores.

Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice

BACKGROUND

Many European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems' efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist-which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field-and how they can be triggered.

METHODS

Our empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases' severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients' strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of "expert patients" or "lay experts" in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.

Differences in coping strategies among young adults and the elderly with cancer

BACKGROUND

Coping with cancer and the oncologist-patient relationship can vary depending on the patient's age. Our aim is to examine and compare young and elderly adults with non-metastatic, resected cancer.

METHODS

Two groups of patients were selected, young (< 40 years) and elderly (> 70) with a diagnosis of non-metastatic, resected cancer requiring adjuvant chemotherapy from a pre-exiting, national database (NEOCOPING Study). Epidemiological variables were collected and subjects' emotional responses, perceptions of the physician-patient relationship, support network, fears, and regret about the decision to receive chemotherapy were assessed with questionnaires validated in previous studies: Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer, Brief Summary Inventory (18 items), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician's version, Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Patient's version, and Informed Risk (physician and patient versions).

RESULTS

Data from 46 young and 46 elderly participants were collected. The most common neoplasms in both groups were breast (50%) and colorectal (22%). The younger adults had a higher level of education and were actively employed (72% vs. 7%). The leading coping strategy in the younger cohort was hope, and resignation among the elderly. Young adults sought more social support and the impact of diagnosis was more negative for them than for older individuals. No significant differences were detected in quality of life; both age groups demanded more time at their first visit with the doctor, while the older group exhibited greater satisfaction with shared decision-making. At the end of adjuvant chemotherapy, neither age group regretted their decision to receive said treatment.

CONCLUSION

Higher levels of education, greater demands of the labour market, and the advent of the age of information have entailed drastic changes in the physician-patient relationship paradigm. This is especially true in the younger cancer patient population, who require more information and active participation in decision-making, can display more anxiety about their diagnosis, but also greater capacity to fight.

Evaluation of a shared decision-making communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma: a mixed methods study using simulated patients

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key principle in asthma management, but continues to be poorly implemented in routine care. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma on the SDM behaviors of physicians, and to analyze physician views on the training.

Methods

A mixed methods study with a partially mixed sequential equal status design was conducted to evaluate a 12 h SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma. It included a short introductory talk, videotaped consultations with simulated asthma patients, video analysis in small group sessions, individual feedback, short presentations, group discussions, and practical exercises. The quantitative evaluation phase consisted of a before (t0) after (t1) comparison of SDM performance using the observer-rated OPTION⁵, the physician questionnaire SDM-Q-Doc, and the patient questionnaire SDM-Q-9, using dependent t-tests. The qualitative evaluation phase (t2) consisted of a content analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews.

Results

Initially, 29 physicians participated in the study, 27 physicians provided quantitative data, and 22 physicians provided qualitative data for analysis. Quantitative results showed significantly improved performance in SDM following the training (t1) when compared with performance in SDM before the training (t0) (OPTION⁵: t (26) = − 5.16; p < 0.001) (SDM-Q-Doc: t (26) = − 4.39; p < 0.001) (SDM-Q-9: t (26) = − 5.86; p < 0.001). The qualitative evaluation showed that most physicians experienced a change in attitude and behavior after the training, and positively appraised the training program. Physicians considered simulated patient consultations, including feedback and video analysis, beneficial and suggested the future use of real patient consultations.

Conclusion

The SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma has potential to improve SDM performance, but would benefit from using real patient consultations.

Perceptions and observations of shared decision making during pediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations

Objective

Increased parental involvement in the decision-making process when considering elective surgeries for their children, termed shared decision-making (SDM), may lead to positive outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe perceived and observed levels of SDM during pediatric otolaryngology consultations.

Methods

One hundred and seventeen parents and their children undergoing elective surgical consultations were prospectively enrolled. The visits were videotaped and coded using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale. Following the encounter, all participants completed a questionnaire that measured perceived levels of SDM (SDM-Q-9). Surgeons also completed a similar questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc). Spearman’s correlation coefficient was determined to measure the associations between observed and perceived levels of SDM.

Results

The overall OPTION scores were low (median score of 14 out of 48) and not significantly correlated with perceived levels of SDM (SDM-Q-9, p = 0.415; SDM-Q-Doc, p = 0.236), surgery type (p = 0.197), or patient demographic factors. The OPTION scores were positively correlated with consultation length (p < 0.001). There was great variability in the level to which each OPTION items were observed during the consultation (not present in any visits to present in 96.6% of the visits).

Conclusions

Observed levels of SDM were consistently low, but higher levels were observed when the surgeon spent more time during the consultation. Observed levels of SDM did not match perceived levels of SDM, which were consistently rated higher by both caregivers and surgeons.

Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting

Background: This study investigated the psychometric properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) using comprehensive and thorough psychometric methods in an oncology setting. Methods: Cancer survivors (n=1783; 928 [52.05%] males) and physicians (n=154; 121[78.58%] males) participated in this study. Each cancer survivor completed the SDM-Q-9. Physicians completed the SDM-Q-Doc for each of their cancer patient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch model were used to test the psychometric properties of SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. Results: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrated unidimensional structure in CFA and Rasch model. In addition, the measurement invariance was supported for both SDM-Q-9 and SDM-QDoc across sex using the multigroup CFA. Rash analysis indicates no differential item functioning(DIF)across sex for all the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc items. SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were moderately correlated (r=0.41; P<0.001). Conclusion: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc are valid instruments to assess shared decision making in the oncology setting.

Shared decision-making in older patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer: Determinants of patients' and observers' perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To identify determinants of older patients' perceptions of involvement in decision-making on colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC) treatment, and to compare these with determinants of observers' perceptions.

METHODS

Patients' perceptions of involvement were constructed by the 9-item SDM questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a Visual Analogue Scale for Involvement (VAS-I). Observers' perceptions were constructed by the OPTION5, OPTION12, and MAPPIN'SDM. Convergent validities were calculated between the patient-sided and observer instruments using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Linear regression was used to identify determinants per criterion.

RESULTS

58 CRC and 22 PC patients were included (mean age: 71.8 ± 5.2 years, 45.0% female). No significant correlations were found between the patient-sided and observer instruments. Patients' impression of involvement was influenced by patient characteristics such as quality of life and satisfaction, while observers' perceptions mainly referred to encounter characteristics such as the mean duration of consultations and general communication skills.

CONCLUSION

Due to evident differences in determinants, older CRC/PC patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement should both be collected in evaluating the quality of medical decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

General communication skills should be integrated in SDM training interventions. New SDM measurement tools for patients are needed to sufficiently discriminate between the constructs of involvement and satisfaction.

Assessing Shared Decision-Making Clinical Behaviors Among Genetic Counsellors

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative approach in which clinicians educate, support, and guide patients as they make informed, value-congruent decisions. SDM improves patients' health-related outcomes through increasing knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and enhancing experience of care. We measured SDM in genetic counselling appointments with 27 pregnant women who were at increased risk to have a baby with a genetic abnormality. The eight experienced genetic counsellors who participated had no specific SDM training and were unaware that SDM was being assessed. Audio transcripts of appointments were scored using 'Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making' (OPTION12). Patients' anxiety and decisional conflict were also assessed. The genetic counsellors' mean OPTION12 score was 42.4% (SD 9.0%; possible range 0-100%). Specific SDM behaviours that scored highest included introducing the concept of equipoise and listing all options with their pros and cons. Behaviours that scored lowest included eliciting patients' preferred approach to receiving information and desired degree of involvement in decision-making. Patients' levels of anxiety and decisional conflict were unassociated with genetic counsellors' OPTION12 scores. Some SDM behaviours were better demonstrated in this prenatal genetic counselling study than others. Formal training of genetic counsellors in SDM may enhance use of this approach in their professional practice.

Psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in oncology practice

Background/Objective: This study sought to assess the psychometric properties of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in patients with resected, non-metastatic cancer and eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. Method: A total of 568 patients were recruited from a multi-institutional, prospective, transversal study. Patients answered the SDM-Q-9 after visiting their medical oncologist who, in turn, completed the SDM-Q-Physician version. Reliability, factorial structures [exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)], and convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 scores were explored. Results: SDM-Q-9 showed a clear factorial structure, compatible with a strong and replicable general factor and a secondary group factor, in patients with resected, non-metastatic cancer. Total sum scores derived from the general factor showed good reliability in terms of omega coefficient: .90. The association between patient and physician perception of SDM was weak and failed to reach statistical significance. Males and patients over 60 years of age displayed the greatest satisfaction with SDM. Conclusions: SDM-Q-9 can aid in evaluating SDM from the cancer patients' perspective. SDM-Q-9 is helpful in studies examining patient perspectives of SDM and as an indicator of the degree of quality and satisfaction with health care and patient-physician relationship.

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.

METHODS

In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.

RESULTS

We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

Psychometric properties of the German version of Observer OPTION5

BACKGROUND

In order to conduct studies on shared decision-making (SDM) and to implement SDM in routine practice, psychometrically tested measures are needed. The development of the short 5-item version of the OPTION scale (Observer OPTION⁵) allows to assess SDM from an observer perspective. Observer OPTION⁵ is so far only available in English and Dutch. The aim of this study was to translate the Observer OPTION⁵ rating scale into German and to test its psychometric properties.

METHODS

The German Observer OPTION⁵ was tested in a secondary data analysis of audio-recordings of patient-physician-consultations (N = 79) in German primary care practices. Demographic data were analysed using descriptive statistics. To assess inter- and intra-rater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. For assessing concurrent validity, a correlation (Spearman's Rho) of the sum score of Observer OPTION⁵ and Observer OPTION¹² was calculated.

RESULTS

The consultations dealt with decisions regarding type 2 diabetes (N = 31), chronic back pain (N = 23), depression (N = 20), and other diseases (N = 5). Analysis of inter-rater reliability yielded an ICC of 0.82 for the sum score; across the five single items ICCs ranged between 0.45 and 0.77. For the intra-rater reliability an ICC of 0.83 was observed for the total score; across the five single items ICCs ranged between 0.45 and 0.86. The Observer OPTION⁵ had a mean total score of 11.84 (SD = 11.92) and the Observer OPTION¹² had a mean total score of 10.3 (SD = 7.9), both on a potential range of 0 to 100. The correlation between the total scores of Observer OPTION⁵ and Observer OPTION¹² was r = 0.47 (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results regarding inter- and intra-rater reliability were excellent on the total score level. Observer OPTION⁵ showed moderate concurrent validity using Observer OPTON¹². The results are generally comparable to the results of the original English version of Observer OPTION⁵. The German version of Observer OPTION⁵ can be used in research and evaluation of clinical practice. Nevertheless, further testing is adviced.

The mediating role of spirituality (meaning, peace, faith) between psychological distress and mental adjustment in cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were (a) to determine the psychometric properties of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp) scale and (b) to provide that FACIT scores behave one-dimensional to establish the mediating role of spiritual well-being in psychological distress and mental adjustment in a sample of patients with non-metastatic, resected cancer.

METHOD

A total of 504 consecutive patients completed the FACIT-Sp, Brief Symptom Inventory, and Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer scales. The dimensionality and structure of the scale were assessed by semi-confirmatory factor analysis; the reliability of the derived scale scores was evaluated using the omega coefficient, and regression analysis appraised the FACIT-Sp's mediating role between psychological distress and mental adjustment.

RESULTS

A clear and theoretically interpretable solution in two factors that agreed generally with solutions reported in other languages was obtained for the FACIT item scores and omega reliabilities of the derived Meaning/Peace (0.85) and Faith (0.86) scales were acceptable. The oblique solution in two factors was compatible with an essentially unidimensional solution of general well-being and associated strongly with psychological distress and mental adjustment. Spiritual well-being acted as a partial mediator between psychological distress and mental adjustment strategies, such as fighting spirit, hope, and cognitive avoidance.

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish version of the FACIT-Sp scale is a reliable and valid clinical evaluation tool, and further highlights the potential clinical implications of spirituality for improving quality of life and adjustment to cancer.

Shared Decision-Making in the Management of Congenital Vascular Malformations

BACKGROUND

In shared decision-making, clinicians and patients arrive at a joint treatment decision, by incorporating best available evidence and the patients' personal values and preferences. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in managing patients with congenital vascular malformations, for which preference-sensitive decision-making seems obvious. The authors investigated preferences regarding decision-making and current shared decision-making behavior during physician-patient encounters.

METHODS

In two Dutch university hospitals, adults and children with congenital vascular malformations facing a treatment-related decision were enrolled. Before the consultation, patients (or parents of children) expressed their preference regarding decision-making (Control Preferences Scale). Afterward, participants completed shared decision-making-specific questionnaires (nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire, CollaboRATE, and satisfaction), and physicians completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician questionnaire. Consultations were audiotaped and patient involvement was scored by two independent researchers using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement instrument. All questionnaire results were expressed on a scale of 0 to 100 (optimum shared decision-making).

RESULTS

Fifty-five participants (24 parents and 31 adult patients) were included. Two-thirds preferred the shared decision-making approach (Control Preferences Scale). Objective five-item Observing Patient Involvement scores were low (mean ± SD, 31 ± 15), whereas patient and physician Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire scores were high, with means of 68 ± 18 and 68 ± 19, respectively. The median CollaboRATE score was 93. There was no clear relationship between shared decision-making and satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Although adults and parents of children with vascular malformations express a strong desire for shared decision-making, objective shared decision-making behavior is still lacking, most likely because of poor awareness of the shared decision-making concept among patients, parents, and physicians. To improve shared decision-making practice, targeted interventions (e.g., decision aids, staff training) are essential.

Shared Decision-Making and Children With Disabilities: Pathways to Consensus

Shared decision-making (SDM) promotes family and clinician collaboration, with ultimate goals of improved health and satisfaction. This clinical report provides a basis for a systematic approach to the implementation of SDM by clinicians for children with disabilities. Often in the discussion of treatment plans, there are gaps between the child's/family's values, priorities, and understanding of perceived "best choices" and those of the clinician. When conducted well, SDM affords an appropriate balance incorporating voices of all stakeholders, ultimately supporting both the child/family and clinician. With increasing knowledge of and functional use of SDM skills, the clinician will become an effective partner in the decision-making process with families, providing family-centered care. The outcome of the process will support the beneficence of the physician, the authority of the family, and the autonomy and well-being of the child.

The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany

The main focus of the paper is on the description of the development and current state of research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) after fifteen years of substantial advances in health policy and health services research. What is the current state of SDM in health policy? The "Patients' Rights Act" from 2013 standardizes all rights and responsibilities within the framework of medical treatment for German citizens and legal residents. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on a clinician-patient-partnership. What is the current state of SDM interventions and patient decision support tools? SDM training programs for healthcare professionals have been developed. Their implementation in medical schools has been successful. Several decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care, specifically for national cancer screening programs. What is the current state of research and routine implementation? The German government and other public institutions are constantly funding research programs in which patient-centered care and shared decision-making are important topics. The development and implementation of decision tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of CME trainings for healthcare professionals require future efforts. What does the future look like? With the support of health policy and scientific evidence, transfer of PCC and SDM to practice is regarded as meaningful. Research can help to assess barriers, facilitators, and needs, and subsequently to develop and evaluate corresponding strategies to successfully implement PCC and SDM in routine care, which remains challenging.

Psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis: item response theory modelling and confirmatory factor analysis

Background

Shared decision-making is a cornerstone of patient-centred care. The 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is a brief self-assessment tool for measuring patients’ perceived level of involvement in decision-making related to their own treatment and care. Information related to the psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of the items composing the SDM-Q-9 and its dimensional structure in patients with relapsing-remitting MS.

Methods

A non-interventional, cross-sectional study in adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS was conducted in 17 MS units throughout Spain. A nonparametric item response theory (IRT) analysis was used to assess the latent construct and dimensional structure underlying the observed responses. A parametric IRT model, General Partial Credit Model, was fitted to obtain estimates of the relationship between the latent construct and item characteristics. The unidimensionality of the SDM-Q-9 instrument was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

A total of 221 patients were studied (mean age = 42.1 ± 9.9 years, 68.3% female). Median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 2.5 ± 1.5. Most patients reported taking part in each step of the decision-making process. Internal reliability of the instrument was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.91) and the overall scale scalability score was 0.57, indicative of a strong scale. All items, except for the item 1, showed scalability indices higher than 0.30. Four items (items 6 through to 9) conveyed more than half of the SDM-Q-9 overall information (67.3%). The SDM-Q-9 was a good fit for a unidimensional latent structure (comparative fit index = 0.98, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.07). All freely estimated parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.001). All items presented standardized parameter estimates with salient loadings (>0.40) with the exception of item 1 which presented the lowest loading (0.26). Items 6 through to 8 were the most relevant items for shared decision-making.

Conclusions

The SDM-Q-9 presents appropriate psychometric properties and is therefore useful for assessing different aspects of shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) is a 9-item measure of the decisional process in medical encounters from both patients' and physicians' perspectives. It has good acceptance, feasibility, and reliability. This systematic review aimed to 1) evaluate the use of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc in intervention studies on shared decision making (SDM) in clinical settings, 2) describe how the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc performed regarding sensitivity to change, and 3) assess the methodological quality of studies and study protocols that use the measure.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2010 and October 2015 that evaluated interventions to facilitate SDM. The search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Medline), reference tracking, citation tracking, and personal knowledge. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts as well as full texts of potentially relevant records. We extracted the data using a pilot tested sheet, and we assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tools from the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).

RESULTS

Five completed studies and six study protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The measure was used in a variety of health care settings, mainly in Europe, to evaluate several types of interventions. The reported mean sum scores ranged from 42 to 75 on a scale from 0 to 100. In four studies no significant change was detected in the mean-differences between main groups. In the fifth study the difference was small. Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias in four of the five completed studies, while the study protocols received moderate quality ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a wide range of areas in which the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were applied. In the future this review may help researchers decide whether the measure fits their purposes. Furthermore, the review revealed risk of bias in previous trials that used the measure, and may help future trials decrease this risk. More research on the measure's sensitivity to change is strongly suggested.

Shared Decision Making and the Use of Decision Aids

BACKGROUND

In shared decision making (SDM), the patient and the physician reach decisions in partnership. We conducted a trial of SDM training for physicians who treat patients with cancer.

METHODS

Physicians who treat patients with cancer were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized trial and carry out SDM together with breast or colon cancer patients who faced decisions about their treatment. Decision-related physician-patient conversations were recorded. The patients filled out questionnaires immediately after the consultations (T1) and three months later (T2). The primary endpoints were the patients' confidence in and satisfaction with the decisions taken. The secondary endpoints were the process of decision making, anxiety, depression, quality of life, and externally assessed physician competence in SDM. The physicians in the intervention group underwent 12 hours of training in SDM, including the use of decision aids.

RESULTS

Of the 900 physicians invited to participated in the trial, 105 answered the invitation. 86 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (44 and 42 physicians, respectively); 33 of the 86 physicians recruited at least one patient for the trial. A total of 160 patients participated in the trial, of whom 55 were treated by physicians in the intervention group. There were no intergroup differences in the primary endpoints. Trained physicians were more competent in SDM (Cohen's d = 0.56; p<0.05). Patients treated by trained physicians had lower anxiety and depression scores immediately after the consultation (d = -0.12 and -0.14, respectively; p<0.10), and markedly lower anxiety and depression scores three months later (d = -0.94 and -0.67, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

When physicians treating cancer patients improve their competence in SDM by appropriate training, their patients may suffer less anxiety and depression. These effects merit further study.

When do cancer patients regret their treatment decision? A path analysis of the influence of clinicians' communication styles and the match of decision-making styles on decision regret

OBJECTIVE

To test the influence of physician empathy (PE), shared decision making (SDM), and the match between patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles on patients' decision regret.

METHODS

Patients with breast or colon cancer (n=71) completed questionnaires immediately following (T1) and three months after a consultation (T2). Path analysis was used to examine the relationships among patient demographics, patient reports of PE, SDM, the match between preferred and perceived decision-making styles, and patient decision regret at T2.

RESULTS

After controlling for clinician clusters, higher PE was directly associated with more SDM (β=0.43, p<0.01) and lower decision regret (β=-0.28, p<0.01). The match between patients' preferred and perceived roles was negatively associated with decision regret (β=-0.33, p<0.01). Patients who participated less than desired reported more decision regret at T2. There was no significant association between SDM and decision regret (β=0.03, p=0.74).

CONCLUSION

PE and the match between patients' preferred and perceived roles in medical decision making are essential for patient-centered cancer consultations and treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Ways to enhance PE and matching the consultation style to patients' expectations should be encouraged.

A Prospective Evaluation of Shared Decision-making Regarding Analgesics Selection for Older Emergency Department Patients With Acute Musculoskeletal Pain

OBJECTIVES

Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visit by older adults. Outpatient pain management following ED visits in this population is challenging as a result of contraindications to, and side effects from, available therapies. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and emergency physicians may improve patient experiences and health outcomes. Among older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, we sought to characterize their desire for involvement in the selection of outpatient analgesics. We also sought to assess the impact of SDM on change in pain at 1 week, patient satisfaction, and side effects.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of adults aged 60 years and older presenting to the ED with acute musculoskeletal pain. Participants' desire to contribute to outpatient analgesic selection was assessed by phone within 24 hours of ED discharge using the Control Preferences Scale and categorized as active, collaborative, or passive. The extent to which SDM occurred in the ED was also assessed within 24 hours of discharge using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, and scores were subsequently grouped into tertiles of low, middle, and high SDM. The primary outcome was change in pain severity between the ED visit and 1 week. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction regarding the decision about how to treat pain at home, satisfaction with the pain medication itself, and side effects.

RESULTS

Desire of participants (N = 94) to contribute to the decision regarding selection of outpatient analgesics varied: 16% active (i.e., make the final decision themselves), 37% collaborative (i.e., share decision with provider), and 47% passive (i.e., let the doctor make the final decision). The percentage of patients who desired an active role in the decision was higher for patients who were college educated versus those who were not college educated (28% vs. 11%; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 35%), received care from a nurse practitioner versus a resident or an attending physician (32% vs. 9%; difference 23%, 95% CI = 4% to 42%), or received care from a female versus a male provider (24% vs. 5%; difference 19%, 95% = CI 5% to 32%). After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean decrease in pain severity from the ED visit to 1-week follow-up was not significantly different across tertiles of SDM (p = 0.06). Higher SDM scores were associated with greater satisfaction with the discharge pain medications (p = 0.006). SDM was not associated with the class of analgesic received.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain, the reported desire of patients to contribute to decisions regarding analgesics varied based on both patient and provider characteristics. SDM was not significantly related to pain reduction in the first week or type of pain medication received, but was associated with greater patient satisfaction.

Development and Pilot Testing of an Encounter Tool for Shared Decision Making About the Treatment of Graves' Disease

BACKGROUND

The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD.

METHODS

GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before-after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.

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

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 CPSpost 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 CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost 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 CPSpost 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.

Protocol for a pre-implementation and post-implementation study on shared decision-making in the surgical treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients' informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

This paper concerns a pre-implementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at national conferences. Findings will be used to finalise a multi-faceted implementation strategy to test the implementation of SDM and a patient decision aid in terms of cost-effectiveness, in a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4879.