OBJECTIVE: To develop and psychometrically test a brief patient-report instrument for measuring Shared Decision Making (SDM) in clinical encounters. METHODS: We revised an existing instrument (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire; SDM-Q), including the generation of new items and changing the response format. A 9-item version (SDM-Q-9) was developed and tested in a German primary care sample of 2351 patients via face validity ratings, investigation of acceptance, as well as factor and reliability analysis. Findings were cross-validated in a randomly selected subsample. RESULTS: The SDM-Q-9 showed face validity and high acceptance. Factor analysis revealed a clearly one-dimensional nature of the underlying construct. Both item difficulties and discrimination indices proved to be appropriate. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.938 in the test sample. CONCLUSION: The SDM-Q-9 is a reliable and well accepted instrument. Generalizability of the findings is limited by the elderly sample living in rural areas of Germany. While the current results are promising, further testing of criterion validity and administration in other populations is necessary. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The SDM-Q-9 can be used in studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at the implementation of SDM and as a quality indicator in health services assessments. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and psychometrically test a brief patient-report instrument for measuring Shared Decision Making (SDM) in clinical encounters. METHODS: We revised an existing instrument (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire; SDM-Q), including the generation of new items and changing the response format. A 9-item version (SDM-Q-9) was developed and tested in a German primary care sample of 2351 patients via face validity ratings, investigation of acceptance, as well as factor and reliability analysis. Findings were cross-validated in a randomly selected subsample. RESULTS: The SDM-Q-9 showed face validity and high acceptance. Factor analysis revealed a clearly one-dimensional nature of the underlying construct. Both item difficulties and discrimination indices proved to be appropriate. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.938 in the test sample. CONCLUSION: The SDM-Q-9 is a reliable and well accepted instrument. Generalizability of the findings is limited by the elderly sample living in rural areas of Germany. While the current results are promising, further testing of criterion validity and administration in other populations is necessary. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The SDM-Q-9 can be used in studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at the implementation of SDM and as a quality indicator in health services assessments. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Gilad J Kuperman; Alejandro Vanegas; Margaret Sin; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Marc A Probst; Denise D Quigley; Peter St Marie; Nikita Nayyar; Sarah H Sabbagh; Tanesha Beckford; Hemal K Kanzaria Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Pomme van Maarschalkerweerd; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Petronella B Ottevanger; Helle-Brit Fiebrich; Serge Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Christopher V Almario; William D Chey; Dinesh Khanna; Sasan Mosadeghi; Shahzad Ahmed; Elham Afghani; Cynthia Whitman; Garth Fuller; Mark Reid; Roger Bolus; Buddy Dennis; Rey Encarnacion; Bibiana Martinez; Jennifer Soares; Rushaba Modi; Nikhil Agarwal; Aaron Lee; Scott Kubomoto; Gobind Sharma; Sally Bolus; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Paula Jimenez-Fonseca; Urbano Lorenzo-Seva; Pere Joan Ferrando; Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Carmen Beato; Teresa García; María Del Mar Muñoz; Avinash Ramchandani; Ismael Ghanem; Alejandra Rodríguez-Capote; Carlos Jara; Caterina Calderon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Nathan Alhalel; Nicolas O Francone; Alice M Salazar; Sharon Primeaux; Richard Ruiz; Juan Carlos Caicedo; Elisa J Gordon Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Wesley C Holland; Katherine M Hunold; Sowmya A Mangipudi; Alison M Rittenberg; Natalie Yosipovitch; Timothy F Platts-Mills Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Margarita Alegria; Ora Nakash; Kirsten Johnson; Andrea Ault-Brutus; Nicholas Carson; Mirko Fillbrunn; Ye Wang; Alice Cheng; Treniece Harris; Antonio Polo; Alisa Lincoln; Elmer Freeman; Benjamin Bostdorf; Marcos Rosenbaum; Claudia Epelbaum; Martin LaRoche; Ebele Okpokwasili-Johnson; MaJose Carrasco; Patrick E Shrout Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.596