Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secon...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical decision making 2021-02, Vol.41 (2), p.108-119
Hauptverfasser: Valentine, K. D., Vo, Ha, Fowler, Floyd J., Brodney, Suzanne, Barry, Michael J., Sepucha, Karen R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 119
container_issue 2
container_start_page 108
container_title Medical decision making
container_volume 41
creator Valentine, K. D.
Vo, Ha
Fowler, Floyd J.
Brodney, Suzanne
Barry, Michael J.
Sepucha, Karen R.
description Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = −0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0272989X20977878
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2470279705</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0272989X20977878</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2470279705</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-421b8ff781286e644235485f9658694d45d3c50f5f5f546ac6afb45602cd268f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtLxDAQxoMo7vq4e5IcvVSTNK96W9YnKIoP8Fay6WS32m3WpBX8701Z9SDIHIaZ-X0fzIfQASXHlCp1QphihS5eGCmU0kpvoDEVgmVS05dNNB7O2XAfoZ0YXwmhvNB8G43yPKeF5HqMFmfwAY1fLaHtsGkrfP5hmt50tW-xd7hbAH5cmAAVPgNbx2F9a97qdo7vg7cQI360poFTPEmcDx2-T9rklT3AKo1Jdwsm9gH20JYzTYT9776Lni_On6ZX2c3d5fV0cpNZzkWXcUZn2jmlKdMSJOcsF1wLV0ihZcErLqrcCuLEUFwaK42bcSEJsxWT2uW76Gjtuwr-vYfYlcs6Wmga04LvY8m4SrEUioiEkjVqg48xgCtXoV6a8FlSUg75ln_zTZLDb_d-toTqV_ATaAKyNRDNHMpX34c2ffu_4RdHaYIv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2470279705</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Valentine, K. D. ; Vo, Ha ; Fowler, Floyd J. ; Brodney, Suzanne ; Barry, Michael J. ; Sepucha, Karen R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Valentine, K. D. ; Vo, Ha ; Fowler, Floyd J. ; Brodney, Suzanne ; Barry, Michael J. ; Sepucha, Karen R.</creatorcontrib><description>Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P &lt; 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = −0.34, P &lt; 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-989X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20977878</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33319648</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Decision Making ; Decision Making, Shared ; Emotions ; Humans ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Medical decision making, 2021-02, Vol.41 (2), p.108-119</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-421b8ff781286e644235485f9658694d45d3c50f5f5f546ac6afb45602cd268f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-421b8ff781286e644235485f9658694d45d3c50f5f5f546ac6afb45602cd268f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4405-0726 ; 0000-0002-3762-3880 ; 0000-0001-6349-5395 ; 0000-0001-6508-7109</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0272989X20977878$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20977878$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33319648$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Valentine, K. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vo, Ha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fowler, Floyd J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodney, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barry, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sepucha, Karen R.</creatorcontrib><title>Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure</title><title>Medical decision making</title><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><description>Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P &lt; 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = −0.34, P &lt; 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.</description><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Decision Making, Shared</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtLxDAQxoMo7vq4e5IcvVSTNK96W9YnKIoP8Fay6WS32m3WpBX8701Z9SDIHIaZ-X0fzIfQASXHlCp1QphihS5eGCmU0kpvoDEVgmVS05dNNB7O2XAfoZ0YXwmhvNB8G43yPKeF5HqMFmfwAY1fLaHtsGkrfP5hmt50tW-xd7hbAH5cmAAVPgNbx2F9a97qdo7vg7cQI360poFTPEmcDx2-T9rklT3AKo1Jdwsm9gH20JYzTYT9776Lni_On6ZX2c3d5fV0cpNZzkWXcUZn2jmlKdMSJOcsF1wLV0ihZcErLqrcCuLEUFwaK42bcSEJsxWT2uW76Gjtuwr-vYfYlcs6Wmga04LvY8m4SrEUioiEkjVqg48xgCtXoV6a8FlSUg75ln_zTZLDb_d-toTqV_ATaAKyNRDNHMpX34c2ffu_4RdHaYIv</recordid><startdate>20210201</startdate><enddate>20210201</enddate><creator>Valentine, K. D.</creator><creator>Vo, Ha</creator><creator>Fowler, Floyd J.</creator><creator>Brodney, Suzanne</creator><creator>Barry, Michael J.</creator><creator>Sepucha, Karen R.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4405-0726</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-3880</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6349-5395</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6508-7109</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210201</creationdate><title>Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure</title><author>Valentine, K. D. ; Vo, Ha ; Fowler, Floyd J. ; Brodney, Suzanne ; Barry, Michael J. ; Sepucha, Karen R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-421b8ff781286e644235485f9658694d45d3c50f5f5f546ac6afb45602cd268f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Decision Making, Shared</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Valentine, K. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vo, Ha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fowler, Floyd J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodney, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barry, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sepucha, Karen R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Valentine, K. D.</au><au>Vo, Ha</au><au>Fowler, Floyd J.</au><au>Brodney, Suzanne</au><au>Barry, Michael J.</au><au>Sepucha, Karen R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure</atitle><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><date>2021-02-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>108</spage><epage>119</epage><pages>108-119</pages><issn>0272-989X</issn><eissn>1552-681X</eissn><abstract>Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P &lt; 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = −0.34, P &lt; 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>33319648</pmid><doi>10.1177/0272989X20977878</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4405-0726</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-3880</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6349-5395</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6508-7109</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-989X
ispartof Medical decision making, 2021-02, Vol.41 (2), p.108-119
issn 0272-989X
1552-681X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2470279705
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Decision Making
Decision Making, Shared
Emotions
Humans
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Retrospective Studies
title Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T13%3A34%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Development%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Shared%20Decision%20Making%20Process%20Scale:%20A%20Short%20Patient-Reported%20Measure&rft.jtitle=Medical%20decision%20making&rft.au=Valentine,%20K.%20D.&rft.date=2021-02-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=108&rft.epage=119&rft.pages=108-119&rft.issn=0272-989X&rft.eissn=1552-681X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0272989X20977878&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2470279705%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2470279705&rft_id=info:pmid/33319648&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0272989X20977878&rfr_iscdi=true