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

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110608
Author(s):  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Karen R. Sepucha ◽  
Vickie Stringfellow ◽  
KD Valentine
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Breast Cancer Surgery ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Average Correlation ◽  
Intra Class Correlation ◽  
Mail Surveys ◽  
Process Scale

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.

scholarly journals The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN’SDM

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110107
Author(s):  
David Forner ◽  
Christopher W. Noel ◽  
Laura Boland ◽  
Arwen H. Pieterse ◽  
Cornelia M. Borkhoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Measurement Instrument ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Property Assessment

Objective Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN’SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN’SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used. Methods This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN’SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified. Results Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN’SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN’SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN’SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date. Conclusion The MAPPIN’SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.

scholarly journals Current Status and Future Prospects for Shared Decision Making before and after Total Knee Replacement Surgery—A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 668
Author(s):  
Geert van der Sluis ◽  
Jelmer Jager ◽  
Ilona Punt ◽  
Alexandra Goldbohm ◽  
Marjan J. Meinders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Total Knee

Background. To gain insight into the current state-of-the-art of shared decision making (SDM) during decisions related to pre and postoperative care process regarding primary total knee replacement (TKR). Methods. A scoping review was performed to synthesize existing scientific research regarding (1) decisional needs and preferences of patients preparing for, undergoing and recovering from TKR surgery, (2) the relation between TKR decision-support interventions and SDM elements (i.e., team talk, option talk, and decision talk), (3) the extent to which TKR decision-support interventions address patients’ decisional needs and preferences. Results. 2526 articles were identified, of which 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of the 17 articles, ten had a qualitative study design and seven had a quantitative study design. All included articles focused on the decision whether to undergo TKR surgery or not. Ten articles (all qualitative) examined patients’ decisional needs and preferences. From these, we identified four domains that affected the patients’ decision to undergo TKR: (1) personal factors, (2) external factors, (3) information sources and (4) preferences towards outcome prediction. Seven studies (5) randomized controlled trials and 2 cohort studies) used quantitative analyses to probe the effect of decision aids on SDM and/or clinical outcomes. In general, existing decision aids did not appear to be tailored to patient needs and preferences, nor were the principles of SDM well-articulated in the design of decision aids. Conclusions. SDM in TKR care is understudied; existing research appears to be narrow in scope with limited relevance to established SDM principles and the decisional needs of patients undertaking TKR surgery.

Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.

scholarly journals Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110292
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Brittney Mancini ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Carol Cosenza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
High Cholesterol ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario ◽  
Quality Video ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations. Method An online sample was randomized to a clinical decision—colon cancer screening or high cholesterol—and a viewing order—good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted. Results In the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos ( Ps < 0.001), and those who viewed the good-quality high cholesterol video first tended to rate the videos higher. SDM Process scores were related to SDM-Q-9 scores ( rs > 0.58; Ps < 0.001). AUC was poor (0.69) for the high cholesterol model and fair (0.79) for the colorectal cancer model. Heterogeneity analyses suggested individual differences were predictive of SDM Process scores. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed good evidence of validity in a hypothetical scenario but were lacking in ability to classify good-quality or poor-quality videos accurately. Considerable heterogeneity of scoring existed, suggesting that individual differences played a role in evaluating good- or poor-quality SDM conversations.

scholarly journals Crafting Care That Fits: Workload and Capacity Assessments Complementing Decision Aids in Implementing Shared Decision Making (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H Wieringa ◽  
Manuel F Sanchez-Herrera ◽  
Nataly R Espinoza ◽  
Viet-Thi Tran ◽  
Kasey Boehmer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Minimally Disruptive Medicine ◽  
Workload Capacity

UNSTRUCTURED About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient’s context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine–based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.

Decision aids and shared decision making in urogynecology

Menopause ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Felisha Marques ◽  
Kevan Josloff ◽  
Kristin Hung ◽  
May Wakamatsu ◽  
Karen R. Sepucha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document