IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i2p108-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

Author

Listed:
  • K. D. Valentine

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Ha Vo

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Floyd J. Fowler Jr.

    (Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Suzanne Brodney

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Michael J. Barry

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Karen R. Sepucha

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

Abstract

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality ( d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores ( d = 0.57, P

Suggested Citation

  • K. D. Valentine & Ha Vo & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Suzanne Brodney & Michael J. Barry & Karen R. Sepucha, 2021. "Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 108-119, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:108-119
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20977878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20977878
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20977878?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    3. Jaime Moore & Matthew Haemer & Nazrat Mirza & Ying Z Weatherall & Joan Han & Caren Mangarelli & Mary Jane Hawkins & Stavra Xanthakos & Robert Siegel, 2019. "Pilot Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Adolescents with Severe Obesity in US Pediatric Weight Management Programs within the COMPASS Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Kevin Mertz & Romil F. Shah & Sara L. Eppler & Jeffrey Yao & Marc Safran & Ariel Palanca & Serena S. Hu & Michael Gardner & Derek F. Amanatullah & Robin N. Kamal, 2020. "A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 766-773, August.
    5. Sarah-Maude Deschênes & Marie-Pierre Gagnon & France Légaré & Annie Lapointe & Stéphane Turcotte & Sophie Desroches, 2013. "Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    6. Clarissa Hsu & David T. Liss & Dominick L. Frosch & Emily O. Westbrook & David Arterburn, 2017. "Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 113-126, January.
    7. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    8. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    9. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    10. Chen Zhang & Kevin Fiscella & Yu Liu, 2022. "Exploring the Role of Provider–Patient Communication in Women’s Sexual Health and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care in the Primary Care Settings in New York State of the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    12. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    13. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    14. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Sian K. Smith & Michael Wolf, 2010. "The Challenge of Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Lower Literacy: A Framework for Research and Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 35-44, January.
    15. Dyer, Thomas Anthony & Owens, Janine & Robinson, Peter Glenn, 2014. "The acceptability of care delegation in skill-mix: The salience of trust," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 170-178.
    16. Pamela B. Peele & Laura A. Siminoff & Ying Xu & Peter M. Ravdin, 2005. "Decreased Use of Adjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid with Individualized Risk Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 301-307, May.
    17. Coleman-Brueckheimer, Kate & Spitzer, Joseph & Koffman, Jonathan, 2009. "Involvement of Rabbinic and communal authorities in decision-making by haredi Jews in the UK with breast cancer: An interpretative phenomenological analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 323-333, January.
    18. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    19. Nick Bansback & Mark Harrison & Carlo Marra, 2016. "Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 490-502, May.
    20. Barnett, Erin R. & Boucher, Elizabeth A. & Neubacher, Katrin & Carpenter-Song, Elizabeth A., 2016. "Decision-making around psychotropic medications for children in foster care: Perspectives from foster parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 206-213.

    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:41:y:2021:i:2:p:108-119. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.