Validation of the SDM Process Scale to Evaluate Shared Decision-Making at Clinical Sites

The Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale (scored 0-4) uses 4 questions about decision-making behaviors: discussion of options, pros, cons, and preferences. We use data from mail surveys of patients who made surgical decisions at 9 clinical sites and a national web survey to assess the reliability and validity of the measure to assess shared decision-making at clinical sites. Patients at sites using decision aids to promote shared decision-making for hip, knee, back, or breast cancer surgery had significantly higher scores than national cross-section samples of surgical patients for 3 of 4 comparisons and significantly higher scores for both comparisons with “usual care sites.” Reliability was supported by an intra-class correlation at the clinical site level of 0.93 and an average correlation of SDM scores for knee and hip surgery patients treated at the same sites of 0.56. The results document the reliability and validity of the measure to assess the degree of shared decision-making for surgical decisions at clinical sites.

Decisions about medication use and cancer screening across age groups in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe decision process and quality for common cancer screening and medication decisions by age group.

METHODS

We included 2941 respondents to a national Internet survey who made at least one decision about colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening, blood pressure or cholesterol medications. Respondents were queried about decision processes.

RESULTS

Across the five decisions considered, decision process scores were similar (and generally low) across age groups for medication and cancer screening, indicating that all groups had poor involvement in medical decision making. Overall knowledge scores were low across age groups, with elderly (75+) having slightly higher knowledge about medications vs. younger respondents. Elderly respondents reported similar goals and concerns when making decisions, though placed greater importance of having peace of mind from a normal result for cancer screening vs. younger respondents.

CONCLUSION

Across age groups, respondents reported poor decision processes about common medications and cancer screening, despite little evidence of benefit for some interventions (cancer screening, cholesterol lowering medicines in low risk elderly) and possibility of harm in the elderly.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Particular care should be taken to help patients understand both benefit and risk of screening tests and routine medications.

Toward a national consumer survey: evaluation of the CABHS and MHSIP instruments

This article describes a study evaluating the Consumer Assessment of Behavioral Health Survey (CABHS) and the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) surveys. The purpose of the study was to provide data that could be used to develop recommendations for an improved instrument. Subjects were 3,443 adults in six behavioral health plans. The surveys did not differ significantly in response rate or consumer burden. Both surveys reliably assessed access to treatment and aspects of appropriateness and quality. The CABHS survey reliably assessed features of the insurance plan; the MHSIP survey reliably assessed treatment outcome. Analyses of comparable items suggested which survey items had greater validity. Results are discussed in terms of consistency with earlier research using these and other consumer surveys. Implications and recommendations for survey development, quality improvement, and national policy initiatives to evaluate health plan performance are presented.