BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is widely accepted as the preferred method for reaching treatment decisions in the oncology setting including those about clinical trial participation: however, there is some disagreement between researchers over the components of SDM. Specific standardized coding systems are needed to help overcome this difficulty. OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to describe the development of an oncology specific SDM coding system, the DAS-O. The second objective was to provide reliability and validity data supporting the DAS-O. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consultation data were available from tertiary cancer center out patient oncology clinics in: Australia, New Zealand (ANZ), Switzerland, Germany and Austria (SGA). Patients were women with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Reliability data were from 18 randomly selected coded transcripts drawn from ANZ and SGA. Concurrent validity data are from 55 (ANZ) consultations. MEASUREMENT: Inter and Intra rater reliability data was evaluated using Kappa correlation statistics and correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were used to assess concurrent validity between the DAS-O and two other SDM coding systems, OPTION and DSAT. RESULTS: Inter and Intra rater reliability for the system were high with average Kappas of 0.58 and 0.65 respectively. Correlation coefficients between DAS-O and OPTION was 0.73 and >0.5 for DSAT. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a reliable and valid coding system for identifying and rating the quality of SDM in breast cancer consultations.
BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is widely accepted as the preferred method for reaching treatment decisions in the oncology setting including those about clinical trial participation: however, there is some disagreement between researchers over the components of SDM. Specific standardized coding systems are needed to help overcome this difficulty. OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to describe the development of an oncology specific SDM coding system, the DAS-O. The second objective was to provide reliability and validity data supporting the DAS-O. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consultation data were available from tertiary cancer center out patient oncology clinics in: Australia, New Zealand (ANZ), Switzerland, Germany and Austria (SGA). Patients were women with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Reliability data were from 18 randomly selected coded transcripts drawn from ANZ and SGA. Concurrent validity data are from 55 (ANZ) consultations. MEASUREMENT: Inter and Intra rater reliability data was evaluated using Kappa correlation statistics and correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were used to assess concurrent validity between the DAS-O and two other SDM coding systems, OPTION and DSAT. RESULTS: Inter and Intra rater reliability for the system were high with average Kappas of 0.58 and 0.65 respectively. Correlation coefficients between DAS-O and OPTION was 0.73 and >0.5 for DSAT. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a reliable and valid coding system for identifying and rating the quality of SDM in breast cancer consultations.
Authors: Terrance L Albrecht; Susan S Eggly; Marci E J Gleason; Felicity W K Harper; Tanina S Foster; Amy M Peterson; Heather Orom; Louis A Penner; John C Ruckdeschel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pierrette Guimond; Helen Bunn; Annette M O'Connor; Mary Jane Jacobsen; Valerie K Tait; Elizabeth R Drake; Ian D Graham; Dawn Stacey; Tom Elmslie Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2003-07
Authors: Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra A Hartasanchez; Stuart W Grande; Victor M Montori; Marleen Kunneman; Juan P Brito; Sarah McCarthy; Ian G Hargraves Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: P Butow; R Brown; J Aldridge; I Juraskova; P Zoller; F Boyle; M Wilson; J Bernhard Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: M Kunneman; C A M Marijnen; T Rozema; H M Ceha; D A R H Grootenboers; K J Neelis; A M Stiggelbout; A H Pieterse Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Julia Wade; Daisy Elliott; Kerry N L Avery; Daisy Gaunt; Grace J Young; Rebecca Barnes; Sangeetha Paramasivan; W Bruce Campbell; Jane M Blazeby; Alison J Birtle; Rob C Stein; David J Beard; Alison W Halliday; Jenny L Donovan Journal: Trials Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Paul P Christopher; Paul S Appelbaum; Debbie Truong; Karen Albert; Louise Maranda; Charles Lidz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 3.240