Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q)
Introduction
In recent years shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an appropriate approach for patient physician communication and decision-making [1]. The first definition of this concept can be found in a report on making health care decisions by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Published in 1982 it describes SDM as a process which is based on mutual respect and partnership [2]. More attention to SDM in the literature was given in the late 1990s when several conceptualisations led to a stronger interest in decision-making between patient and physician. According to Charles et al. SDM implies that at least two individuals are involved in the process of making a treatment decision [3]. Both parties exchange key information about treatment options before they agree on a preferred choice. Another practical contribution of Towle and Godolphin [4] proposed competencies for physicians and patients to engage in SDM. In contrast Elwyn et al. [5] put more emphasis on the physicians’ side highlighting the need for eliciting and responding to patients’ understanding and their preferences. Further specifications of the decision-making process were developed by Giersdorf et al. [6]. In a recent systematic review on conceptual definitions of SDM Makoul and Clayman [7] stated that there is no common definition so far and proposed a model that consists of the essential practical elements of SDM integrating concepts from the existing literature. Since the various conceptual contributions in the 1990s a lot of research has been done on SDM and its influence on outcomes ranging from patient satisfaction, adherence, and decisional conflict to health status [7], [8].
The German Ministry of Health funded a research consortium on SDM from 2001 until 2005 with 10 projects researching the implementation of SDM in different scenarios such as breast cancer, depression or hypertension. The overall aim of this research consortium was the investigation of intervention effects resulting from specific training programs for physicians and the use of patient information materials and decision aids. Since these intervention strategies need adequate measures to evaluate their effectiveness, members of all 10 projects joined a comprehensive methods team on methodological issues in SDM to create a basis for common evaluation strategies. For the purpose of fully capturing process and effects of SDM both the views of physicians and patients need robust measures to enable comparisons and conclusions [9]. Valid instrument development should ideally include clear, theory-driven definition of the construct, item selection embedded in qualitative inquiry and rigorous development according to psychometric principles [9]. Yet the construct of SDM has been stated as very complex with some aspects being easier to measure than others which can render instrument development somewhat challenging [9].
With regard to available measures Elwyn et al. [9] conducted a systematic review on observational instruments and stated that none existed up to now to measure the extent of SDM. Consequently they developed the OPTION scale to assess the degree of SDM that is practiced by physicians in consultations [10], [11].
As for patient-report questionnaires the German Consortium's methods team generated a review following search strategies via “BIOSIS + Medline + PreMedline + LWW (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins) (1966–2002)” and “Psyndex plus Lit & AV (1977/2002)” [12]. The resulting instruments of this search measure different aspects of SDM such as patients’ preferences for information and participation [13], decisional conflict [14], doctor facilitation of participation and patients’ information seeking behavior [15] as well as risk communication and confidence in decision-making [16], and satisfaction with decision-making [17].
The German research consortium decided to address several relevant constructs within SDM: patients’ preferences for information and participation as well as process and outcome of medical decision-making. The autonomy preference index (API) [13], the control preference scale [18] the patients’ perceived involvement in care scale (PICS) [15] and the combined outcome measure for risk communication and treatment decision making (COMRADE) [16] were therefore chosen to address these.
Apart from the PICS for which the German version had already been validated [19], all instruments had to be translated into German and examined for validity taking differences in language use, cultures and health care systems into account. The instruments were used in comprehensive samples within the consortium ranging from N = 598 for the COMRADE to N = 1154 for the API, with conditions including hypertension, depression, multiple sclerosis and others. Given that one of the main variables studied in the research consortium was the extent of shared decision-making, the results from using PICS and COMRADE in the consortium were of particular interest. Preliminary data with PICS appeared to replicate the original factor structure in its German validation [19] whereas for COMRADE the two factors were highly correlated and item responses showed high ceiling effects [20]. This did not correspond with the original UK validation of COMRADE, probably due to translation, culture and health care system differences. Since the PICS had not been specifically developed to measure the process of SDM and the German version of the COMRADE did not show good validation data, consequently a new theory based instrument, the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q) was developed in the methods team. This paper aims to describe the development process, the first use of the SDM-Q as well as psychometric analyses for its first validation.
Section snippets
Theory development
In order to obtain a valid instrument, first of all the underlying concept was defined [21]. Elwyn's model of competences for involving patients served as a conceptual basis [5]. In addition theories from general psychology [22], social psychology [23] and decision analysis [24], which can also be found in the Ottawa Decision Support Framework [25], were considered. The definition of SDM was further clarified by eliciting points of view discussed in the current literature [7]. As a result core
Sample characteristics
The sample of this study consisted of N = 741 patients out of the medical fields of depression (N = 216), urology (N = 66), anaesthesia (N = 145), gynecology (N = 107) and general practice (N = 207). The mean age of the whole sample was 51.9 (S.D. = 16) years. A 59.1% of the patients were female and 66% had passed higher education (see Table 2).
Item selection
The first three items of the scale were eliminated stepwise according to the criteria of category thresholds indicating an inadequate response format. The remaining
Discussion
This study described the theory based development of a questionnaire to measure the extent of shared decision-making and its first validation within a German research consortium on the implementation of SDM. By use of Rasch analysis on a mixed sample, items which did not fit the underlying construct of SDM or showed inadequate use of response categories were eliminated resulting in a unidimensional scale. However, further findings indicate some inconsistent response patterns and different use
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by a grant from the German Ministry of Health and Social Security (grant # 217-43794-5/6). More information can be found on the website www.shared-decision-making.org. We would like to thank all further members of the German research consortium for their continuous contribution to the work in the methods team by name Christiane Bieber, Anja Deinzer, Nadja Giersdorf, Johannes Hamann, Jürgen Kasper, Karena Leppert, Knut Müller, Tim Neumann, Hanna Rohlfing, Fülöp Scheibler,
References (41)
- et al.
Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)
Soc Sci Med
(1997) - et al.
Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments
Patient Educ Couns
(2001) - et al.
The development of COMRADE – a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations
Patient Educ Couns
(2003) - et al.
Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play?
J Clin Epidemiol
(1992) - et al.
An evidence-based approach to managing women's decisional conflict
JOGNN
(2002) - et al.
Comparison of generic and disease-specific questionnaires for the assessment of quality of life in patients with peripheral arterial disease
J Vasc Surg
(2005) - et al.
Developing a condition specific measure of health for patients with dyspepsia and ulcer related symptoms
J Clin Epidemiol
(1996) Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision making
J Health Serv Res Policy
(1997)- President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making...
- et al.
Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making
Brit Med J
(1999)
Shared decision-making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices
Br J Gen Pract
Development and validation of assessment instruments for shared decision making
Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz
An integrative model of shared decision-making in medical encounters
Patient Educ Couns
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Shared decision-making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement
Qual Saf Health Care
The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision making tasks
Health Expect
Quantitative Messinstrumente des Shared-Decision-Making
Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients
J Gen Intern Med
Validation of a decisional conflict scale
Med Decis Making
Patients’ perceived involvement in care scale: relationship to attitudes about illness and medical care
J Gen Intern Med
Cited by (137)
What value structure underlies shared decision making? A qualitative synthesis of models of shared decision making
2024, Patient Education and CounselingA scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients
2024, Patient Education and CounselingThe mediating effect of shared decision-making in enhancing patient satisfaction with participation in cancer clinical trials
2023, Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing