Fania R Gärtner1, Hanna Bomhof-Roordink1, Ian P Smith1, Isabelle Scholl2,3, Anne M Stiggelbout1, Arwen H Pieterse1. 1. Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. METHODS: In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. RESULTS: We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.
OBJECTIVE: To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. METHODS: In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. RESULTS: We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.
Authors: Cleveland G Shields; Peter Franks; Kevin Fiscella; Sean Meldrum; Ronald M Epstein Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Ellen G Engelhardt; F L Laura Ten Hove; Corrie A M Marijnen; Johanneke E A Portielje; Ellen M A Smets; Hanneke J C J M Hanneke de Haes; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 4.089
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: Jasper M Schellingerhout; Arianne P Verhagen; Martijn W Heymans; Bart W Koes; Henrica C de Vet; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche; Arwen H Pieterse; Pieter M Kroonenberg; Isabelle Scholl; Trudy van der Weijden; Gre P M Luyten; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Henk den Ouden; Ingrid V E Carlier; Irene M van Vliet; Frans G Zitman; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Aisha T Langford; Jeffrey K Belkora; Yuchiao Chang; Beverly Moy; Ann H Partridge; Clara N Lee Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Douglas J Opel; Neal W Dickert; Daniel B Kramer; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds; Keren Ladin; Monica E Peek; Jeff Peppercorn; Jon Tilburt Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: K D Valentine; Brittney Mancini; Ha Vo; Suzanne Brodney; Carol Cosenza; Michael J Barry; Karen R Sepucha Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 2.583