OBJECTIVE: Explore the validity of using patient reports to measure shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: 178 patients diagnosed with breast cancer obtained SDM assistance in a university-based clinic. Trained observers rated physician SDM behaviors and surveyed patients. We calculated the frequency with which patients and observers reported maximum SDM behaviors for each survey item. We also calculated agreement frequency between patients and observers. RESULTS: Over 90% of patients rated doctors as reflecting SDM competencies. Patients reported doctors making recommendations more than soliciting their preferred choice (90% vs. 69%, p<0.001). Patients heard benefits discussed "a lot" more often than they heard risks and side effects discussed "a lot" (81% vs. 58%, p<0.001). Agreement between patients and observers was 75%. In cases of disagreement, patients more frequently perceived SDM behaviors than did observers (15% vs. 9%, p=0.002), suggesting a possible agreement bias. CONCLUSIONS: High agreement supports further investigation into using patients as efficient and effective raters of SDM. Patient ratings may be inflated by agreement bias. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Doctors presentations may be biased toward discussing benefits more than risks. Policy makers can solicit patient ratings of SDM as long as they are aware of possibly inflated ratings due to agreement bias.
OBJECTIVE: Explore the validity of using patient reports to measure shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: 178 patients diagnosed with breast cancer obtained SDM assistance in a university-based clinic. Trained observers rated physician SDM behaviors and surveyed patients. We calculated the frequency with which patients and observers reported maximum SDM behaviors for each survey item. We also calculated agreement frequency between patients and observers. RESULTS: Over 90% of patients rated doctors as reflecting SDM competencies. Patients reported doctors making recommendations more than soliciting their preferred choice (90% vs. 69%, p<0.001). Patients heard benefits discussed "a lot" more often than they heard risks and side effects discussed "a lot" (81% vs. 58%, p<0.001). Agreement between patients and observers was 75%. In cases of disagreement, patients more frequently perceived SDM behaviors than did observers (15% vs. 9%, p=0.002), suggesting a possible agreement bias. CONCLUSIONS: High agreement supports further investigation into using patients as efficient and effective raters of SDM. Patient ratings may be inflated by agreement bias. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Doctors presentations may be biased toward discussing benefits more than risks. Policy makers can solicit patient ratings of SDM as long as they are aware of possibly inflated ratings due to agreement bias.
Authors: Çağatay Doğan; Hamza M Gültekin; Sarper M Erdoğan; Hamdi Özkara; Zübeyr Talat; Ahmet N Erözenci; Can Öbek Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-09-21
Authors: Caitriona Cahir; Stephan U Dombrowski; Catherine M Kelly; M John Kennedy; Kathleen Bennett; Linda Sharp Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Sara E Golden; Linda Ganzini; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Karen B Eden; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-11
Authors: Jeff Belkora; Shelley Volz; Meredith Loth; Alexandra Teng; Margot Zarin-Pass; Dan Moore; Laura Esserman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 2.655