11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measurement challenges in shared decision making: putting the ‘patient’ in patient‐reported measures

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Measuring clinicians' shared decision‐making ( SDM) performance is a key requirement given the intensity of policy interest in many developed countries – yet it remains one of the most difficult methodological challenges, which is a concern for many stakeholders. In this Viewpoint Article, we investigate the development of existing patient‐reported measures ( PRMs) of SDM identified in a recent review. We find that patients were involved in the development of only four of the 13 measures. This lack of patient involvement in PRM development is associated with two major threats to content validity, common to all 13 PRMs of SDM: (i) an assumption of patient awareness of ‘decision points’ and (ii) an assumption that there is only one decision point in each healthcare consultation. We provide detailed examples of these threats and their impact on accurate assessment of SDM processes and outcomes, which may hamper efforts to introduce incentives for SDM implementation. We propose cognitive interviewing as a recommended method of involving patients in the design of PRMs in the field of SDM and provide a practical example of this approach.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

          The study objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a decisional conflict scale (DCS) that elicits: 1) health-care consumers' uncertainty in making a health-related decision; 2) the factors contributing to the uncertainty; and 3) health-care consumers' perceived effective decision making. The DCS was developed in response to the lack of instruments available to evaluate health-care-consumer decision aids and to tailor decision-supporting interventions to particular consumer needs. The scale was evaluated with 909 individuals deciding about influenza immunization or breast cancer screening. A subsample of respondents was retested two weeks later. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. The DCS discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who had strong intentions either to accept or to decline invitations to receive influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and those whose intentions were uncertain. The scale also discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who accepted or rejected immunization and those who delayed their decisions to be immunized. There was a weak inverse correlation (r = -0.16, p < 0.05) between the DCS and knowledge test scores. The psychometric properties of the scale are acceptable. It is feasible and easy to administer. Evaluations of responsiveness to change and validation with more difficult decisions are warranted.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validation of a decision regret scale.

            As patients become more involved in health care decisions, there may be greater opportunity for decision regret. The authors could not find a validated, reliable tool for measuring regret after health care decisions. A 5-item scale was administered to 4 patient groups making different health care decisions. Convergent validity was determined by examining the scale's correlation with satisfaction measures, decisional conflict, and health outcome measures. The scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81 to 0.92). It correlated strongly with decision satisfaction (r = -0.40 to -0.60), decisional conflict (r = 0.31 to 0.52), and overall rated quality of life (r = -0.25 to -0.27). Groups differing on feelings about a decision also differed on rated regret: F(2, 190) = 31.1, P < 0.001. Regret was greater among those who changed their decisions than those who did not, t(175) = 16.11, P < 0.001. The scale is a useful indicator of health care decision regret at a given point in time.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Psychometric Properties of CollaboRATE: A Fast and Frugal Patient-Reported Measure of the Shared Decision-Making Process

              Background Patient-centered health care is a central component of current health policy agendas. Shared decision making (SDM) is considered to be the pinnacle of patient engagement and methods to promote this are becoming commonplace. However, the measurement of SDM continues to prove challenging. Reviews have highlighted the need for a patient-reported measure of SDM that is practical, valid, and reliable to assist implementation efforts. In consultation with patients, we developed CollaboRATE, a 3-item measure of the SDM process. Objective There is a need for scalable patient-reported measure of the SDM process. In the current project, we assessed the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE. Methods A representative sample of the US population were recruited online and were randomly allocated to view 1 of 6 simulated doctor-patient encounters in January 2013. Three dimensions of SDM were manipulated in the encounters: (1) explanation of the health issue, (2) elicitation of patient preferences, and (3) integration of patient preferences. Participants then completed CollaboRATE (possible scores 0-100) in addition to 2 other patient-reported measures of SDM: the 9-item Shared Decision Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Doctor Facilitation subscale of the Patient’s Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). A subsample of participants was resurveyed between 7 and 14 days after the initial survey. We assessed CollaboRATE’s discriminative, concurrent, and divergent validity, intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change. Results The final sample consisted of 1341 participants. CollaboRATE demonstrated discriminative validity, with a significant increase in CollaboRATE score as the number of core dimensions of SDM increased from zero (mean score: 46.0, 95% CI 42.4-49.6) to 3 (mean score 85.8, 95% CI 83.2-88.4). CollaboRATE also demonstrated concurrent validity with other measures of SDM, excellent intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change; however, divergent validity was not demonstrated. Conclusions The fast and frugal nature of CollaboRATE lends itself to routine clinical use. Further assessment of CollaboRATE in real-world settings is required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Assistant Professorpaul.j.barr@dartmouth.edu
                Role: Professor
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                25 June 2015
                October 2016
                : 19
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.2016.19.issue-5 )
                : 993-1001
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical PracticeDartmouth College Hanover NHUSA
                [ 2 ] The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery ScienceDartmouth College Hanover NHUSA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Paul J. Barr, PhD, MSc, PH, BSc, Psych

                The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice

                Dartmouth College

                Hanover

                NH 03755

                USA

                E‐mail: paul.j.barr@ 123456dartmouth.edu

                Article
                HEX12380
                10.1111/hex.12380
                5054852
                26111552
                3525c936-e7ff-4b81-9383-66e85230146b
                © 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 February 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 9, Words: 5128
                Funding
                Funded by: Informed Medical Decision Making Foundation
                Funded by: Emmi Solutions LLC
                Categories
                Viewpoint Article
                Viewpoint Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                hex12380
                October 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.9.4 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2016

                Health & Social care
                decision making,patient participation,physician–patient relations,psychometrics/instrumentation

                Comments

                Comment on this article