IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i1p78-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interpreting Patient Decisional Conflict Scores

Author

Listed:
  • Anouk M. Knops
  • Astrid Goossens
  • Dirk T. Ubbink
  • Dink A. Legemate
  • Lukas J. Stalpers
  • Patrick M. Bossuyt

Abstract

Background . Patient decision aids facilitate treatment decisions. They are often evaluated in terms of their effect on decisional conflict, as measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). It is unclear to what extent lower DCS scores are accompanied by observable patient behavior or emotions. Objective . To help interpret DCS scores. Design . In a Dutch university hospital, statements on behaviors or emotions during decision making were collected from asymptomatic aneurysm patients and healthy employees. Subsequently, they rated the intensity of decisional conflict that each statement expresses on a 1 to 10 scale. Selected statements were prospectively tested in aneurysm patients and cancer patients facing treatment dilemmas. Measurements . Associations between patients’ DCS scores and reported behavior and emotions were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Results . Participants provided 363 statements on behaviors and emotions during decision making, of which 28 were mentioned more than 4 times. Nine forms of behavior and emotions were selected as they were graded with the least variable median ratings of intensity of decisional conflict. Among 100 patients facing a treatment dilemma, each point increase in DCS lowered their odds for “immediately making the decision†(odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–0.98), whereas the odds of “fretting regularly†(OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02–1.08) and “feeling nervous when thinking of the decision†(OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.06) where higher. Conclusions . A decrease in decisional conflict scores leads to less decision postponing behavior, fretting, and nervousness. Research should focus on which DCS scores are needed to make deliberate decisions and which scores hinder patients in decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Anouk M. Knops & Astrid Goossens & Dirk T. Ubbink & Dink A. Legemate & Lukas J. Stalpers & Patrick M. Bossuyt, 2013. "Interpreting Patient Decisional Conflict Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 78-84, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:78-84
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12453500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12453500
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12453500?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Georgios Gerasimou, 2020. "The Decision-Conflict Logit," Papers 2008.04229, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    2. Bo Min Jeon & Su Hyun Kim & Soo Jung Lee, 2018. "Decisional conflict in end‐of‐life cancer treatment among family surrogates: A cross‐sectional survey," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 472-478, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:78-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.