Amy Leader1, Constantine Daskalakis2, Clarence H Braddock3, Elisabeth J S Kunkel4, James R Cocroft1, Sylvia Bereknyei3, Jeffrey M Riggio5, Mark Capkin6, Ronald E Myers1. 1. Department of Medical Oncology (AL, JRC, REM) Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2. Department of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics (CD) Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California (CHB, SB) 4. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (EJSK) Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (JMR) 6. Department of Medicine (MC) Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure the extent of informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening in physician-patient encounters, describe the coding process, and assess the reliability of the IDM measure. METHODS: Audiorecoded encounters of 146 older adult men and their primary care physicians were obtained in a randomized controlled trial of mediated decision support related to prostate cancer screening. Each encounter was dual coded for the presence or absence of 9 elements that reflect several important dimensions of IDM, such as information sharing, patient empowerment, and engaging patients in preference clarification. An IDM-9 score (range = 0-9) was determined for each encounter by summing the number of elements that were coded as present. Estimates of coding reliability and internal consistency were calculated. RESULTS:Male patients tended to be white (59%), married (70%), and between the ages of 50 and 59 (70%). Physicians tended to be white (90%), male (74%), and have more than 10 years of practice experience (74%). IDM-9 scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.1]). Reliability (0.90) and internal consistency (0.81) of the IDM-9 were both high. The IDM dimension observed most frequently was information sharing (74%), whereas the dimension least frequently observed was engagement in preference clarification (3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In physician-patient encounters, the level of IDM concerning prostate cancer screening was low. The use of a dual-coding approach with audiorecorded encounters produced a measure of IDM that was reliable and internally consistent.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To measure the extent of informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening in physician-patient encounters, describe the coding process, and assess the reliability of the IDM measure. METHODS: Audiorecoded encounters of 146 older adult men and their primary care physicians were obtained in a randomized controlled trial of mediated decision support related to prostate cancer screening. Each encounter was dual coded for the presence or absence of 9 elements that reflect several important dimensions of IDM, such as information sharing, patient empowerment, and engaging patients in preference clarification. An IDM-9 score (range = 0-9) was determined for each encounter by summing the number of elements that were coded as present. Estimates of coding reliability and internal consistency were calculated. RESULTS: Male patients tended to be white (59%), married (70%), and between the ages of 50 and 59 (70%). Physicians tended to be white (90%), male (74%), and have more than 10 years of practice experience (74%). IDM-9 scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.1]). Reliability (0.90) and internal consistency (0.81) of the IDM-9 were both high. The IDM dimension observed most frequently was information sharing (74%), whereas the dimension least frequently observed was engagement in preference clarification (3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In physician-patient encounters, the level of IDM concerning prostate cancer screening was low. The use of a dual-coding approach with audiorecorded encounters produced a measure of IDM that was reliable and internally consistent.
Authors: Simon Smith; Muhammad Arsyad Bin Nordin; Tom Hinchy; Patrick Henn; Colm M P O'Tuathaigh Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Margaret Williamson; Lynn Stevenson; Brandy R Davis; R Lee Evans Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Paul K J Han; Sarah Kobrin; Nancy Breen; Djenaba A Joseph; Jun Li; Dominick L Frosch; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Stacey A Fedewa; Ted Gansler; Robert Smith; Ann Goding Sauer; Richard Wender; Otis W Brawley; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Tracy Spinks; Heidi W Albright; Thomas W Feeley; Ron Walters; Thomas W Burke; Thomas Aloia; Eduardo Bruera; Aman Buzdar; Lewis Foxhall; David Hui; Barbara Summers; Alma Rodriguez; Raymond Dubois; Kenneth I Shine Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suzanne K Linder; Michael A Kallen; Patricia Dolan Mullen; James M Galliher; Paul R Swank; Evelyn C Y Chan; Robert J Volk Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Bryan Leyva; Alexander Persoskie; Allison Ottenbacher; Jada G Hamilton; Jennifer D Allen; Sarah C Kobrin; Stephen H Taplin Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.037