OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of the 4-item SURE (Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement) screening test for decisional conflict in patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Four family medicine groups in Quebec and 1 rural academic medical centre in New Hampshire. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-three French-speaking pregnant women considering prenatal screening for Down syndrome and 1474 English-speaking patients referred to watch condition-specific video decision aids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of SURE. A factorial analysis was performed to assess its unidimensionality. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between SURE and the Decisional Conflict Scale to assess concurrent validation. A t test procedure comparing the SURE scores of patients who had made decisions with the scores of those who had not was used to assess construct validation. RESULTS: Among the 123 French-speaking pregnant women, 105 (85%) scored 4 out of 4 (no decisional conflict); 10 (8%) scored 3 (<or= 3 indicates decisional conflict); 7 (6%) scored 2; and 1 (1%) scored 1. Among the 1474 English-speaking treatment-option patients, 981 (67%) scored 4 out of 4; 272 (18%) scored 3; 147 (10%) scored 2; 54 (4%) scored 1; and 20 (1%) scored 0. The reliability of SURE was moderate (Cronbach alpha of 0.54 in French-speaking pregnant women and 0.65 in treatment-option patients). In the group of pregnant women, 2 factors accounted for 72% of the variance. In the treatment-option group, 1 factor accounted for 49% of the variance. In the group of pregnant women, SURE correlated negatively with the Decisional Conflict Scale (r = -0.46; P < .0001); and in the group of treatment-option patients, it discriminated between those who had made a choice for a treatment and those who had not (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The SURE screening test shows promise for screening for decisional conflict in both French- and English-speaking patients; however, future studies should assess its performance in a broader group of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of the 4-item SURE (Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement) screening test for decisional conflict in patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Four family medicine groups in Quebec and 1 rural academic medical centre in New Hampshire. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-three French-speaking pregnant women considering prenatal screening for Down syndrome and 1474 English-speaking patients referred to watch condition-specific video decision aids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of SURE. A factorial analysis was performed to assess its unidimensionality. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between SURE and the Decisional Conflict Scale to assess concurrent validation. A t test procedure comparing the SURE scores of patients who had made decisions with the scores of those who had not was used to assess construct validation. RESULTS: Among the 123 French-speaking pregnant women, 105 (85%) scored 4 out of 4 (no decisional conflict); 10 (8%) scored 3 (<or= 3 indicates decisional conflict); 7 (6%) scored 2; and 1 (1%) scored 1. Among the 1474 English-speaking treatment-option patients, 981 (67%) scored 4 out of 4; 272 (18%) scored 3; 147 (10%) scored 2; 54 (4%) scored 1; and 20 (1%) scored 0. The reliability of SURE was moderate (Cronbach alpha of 0.54 in French-speaking pregnant women and 0.65 in treatment-option patients). In the group of pregnant women, 2 factors accounted for 72% of the variance. In the treatment-option group, 1 factor accounted for 49% of the variance. In the group of pregnant women, SURE correlated negatively with the Decisional Conflict Scale (r = -0.46; P < .0001); and in the group of treatment-option patients, it discriminated between those who had made a choice for a treatment and those who had not (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The SURE screening test shows promise for screening for decisional conflict in both French- and English-speaking patients; however, future studies should assess its performance in a broader group of patients.
Authors: A M O'Connor; P Tugwell; G A Wells; T Elmslie; E Jolly; G Hollingworth; R McPherson; H Bunn; I Graham; E Drake Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 1998-03
Authors: France Légaré; Ian D Graham; Annette C O'Connor; Michèle Aubin; Lucie Baillargeon; Yvan Leduc; Jean Maziade Journal: Health Expect Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Amy M Manning; Angela L Duggins; Karin A Tiemeyer; Lisa A Mullen; Joseph A Crisalli; Aliza P Cohen; Stacey L Ishman Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; Tania Lobo; George Luta; Jun Shan; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Amethyst D Leimpeter; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mary C Politi; Rachel L Grant; Nerissa P George; Abigail R Barker; Aimee S James; Lindsay M Kuroki; Timothy D McBride; Jingxia Liu; Courtney M Goodwin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-02-28
Authors: Roland Grad; France Légaré; Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Ainsley Elizabeth Moore; Danielle Kasperavicius; Kaylyn L Kretschmer Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Michaela S Tracy; Meghan E Meyer; Karen Sepucha; Shari Gelber; Judi Hirshfield-Bartek; Susan Troyan; Monica Morrow; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391