IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v20y2019i1d10.1007_s10198-019-01061-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Fanni Rencz

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

  • Béla Tamási

    (Semmelweis University)

  • Valentin Brodszky

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • László Gulácsi

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Miklós Weszl

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Márta Péntek

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

Background The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is one of the most frequently applied instruments for assessing patients’ involvement in medical decision-making. Our objectives were to develop a Hungarian version of SDM-Q-9, to evaluate its psychometric properties and to compare its performance between primary and specialised care settings. Methods In 2019, a sample of adults (n = 537) representative of the Hungarian general population in terms of age, gender and geographic region completed an online survey with respect to a recent health-related decision. Outcome measures included SDM-Q-9 and Control Preferences Scale-post (CPSpost). Item characteristics, internal consistency reliability and the factor structure of SDM-Q-9 were determined. Results The overall ceiling and floor effects for SDM-Q-9 total scores were 12.3% and 2.2%, respectively. An excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.925) was demonstrated. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a one-factor model explaining 63.5% of the variance of SDM-Q-9. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the acceptability of this model. Known-groups validity was confirmed with CPSpost categories; mean SDM-Q-9 total scores were higher in the ‘Shared decision’ category (72.6) compared to both ‘Physician decided’ (55.1, p = 0.0002) and ‘Patient decided’ (57.2, p = 0.0086) categories. In most aspects of validity and reliability, there was no statistically significant difference between primary and specialised care. Conclusions The overall good measurement properties of the Hungarian SDM-Q-9 make the questionnaire suitable for use in both primary and specialised care settings. SDM-Q-9 may be useful for health policies targeting the implementation of shared decision-making and aiming to improve efficiency and quality of care in Hungary.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanni Rencz & Béla Tamási & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Miklós Weszl & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 43-55, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01061-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01061-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01061-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-019-01061-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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 & Iren, 2015. "Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Sonja Ziniel & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 20-34, September.
    3. Marie-Anne Durand & Lewis Carpenter & Hayley Dolan & Paulina Bravo & Mala Mann & Frances Bunn & Glyn Elwyn, 2014. "Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    5. Henry Kaiser, 1970. "A second generation little jiffy," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 35(4), pages 401-415, December.
    6. Bianca Cox & Herman Oyen & Emmanuelle Cambois & Carol Jagger & Sophie Roy & Jean-Marie Robine & Isabelle Romieu, 2009. "The reliability of the Minimum European Health Module," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 54(2), pages 55-60, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Óscar Brito Fernandes & Armin Lucevic & Márta Péntek & Dionne Kringos & Niek Klazinga & László Gulácsi & Zsombor Zrubka & Petra Baji, 2021. "Self-Reported Waiting Times for Outpatient Health Care Services in Hungary: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey on a National Representative Sample," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-14, February.

    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. Chao-Ming Wang & Bo-Ting Lee & Ting-Yun Lo, 2023. "The Design of a Novel Digital Puzzle Gaming System for Young Children’s Learning by Interactive Multi-Sensing and Tangible User Interfacing Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-43, February.
    2. Headley, Andrea M. & Blount-Hill, Kwan-Lamar & St. John, Victor J., 2021. "The psychology of justice buildings: A survey experiment on police architecture, public sentiment, and race," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Claudia Giacomozzi & Luigi Palmieri & Lidia Gargiulo & Cinzia Lo Noce & Laura Iannucci & Anna Di Lonardo & Serena Vannucchi & Graziano Onder & Furio Colivicchi & Simona Giampaoli & Chiara Donfrancesco, 2020. "The Perceived Health Status from Young Adults to Elderly: Results of the MEHM Questionnaire within the CUORE Project Survey 2008–2012," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Strutton, David & Pelton, Lou E. & Lumpkin, James R., 1995. "Sex differences in ingratiatory behavior : An investigation of influence tactics in the salesperson-customer dyad," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 35-45, September.
    5. Joseph Hagan & Marlene Walden, 2017. "Development and Evaluation of the Barriers to Nurses’ Participation in Research Questionnaire at a Large Academic Pediatric Hospital," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 26(2), pages 157-175, April.
    6. Robert A. Dees & Scott T. Nestler & Robert Kewley, 2013. "WholeSoldier Performance Appraisal to Support Mentoring and Personnel Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 82-97, March.
    7. Chao-Ming Wang & Chen-Siang Huang, 2022. "Using Digital Technology to Design a Simple Interactive System for Nostalgic Gaming to Promote the Health of Slightly Disabled Elderly People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-30, December.
    8. Monica Palma & Veronica Distefano & Alessandra Spennato, 2019. "Quality Assessment of the Oncology Health Service in a Public Hospital," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 327-343, November.
    9. Simona Catalina Stefan & Ion Popa & Cosmin Octavian Dobrin, 2016. "Towards a Model of Sustainable Competitiveness of Health Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Bárbara Françoise Cardoso & Pery Francisco Assis Shikida & Adele Finco, 2017. "Development of Brazilian Biodiesel Sector from the Perspective of Stakeholders," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Carlota Lorenzo-Romero & Efthymios Constantinides, 2019. "On-line Crowdsourcing: Motives of Customers to Participate in Online Collaborative Innovation Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Szymon Zaleski & Rafał Michalski, 2021. "Success Factors in Sustainable Management of IT Service Projects: Exploratory Factor Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    13. Kobby Mensah & Justice Boateng Dankwah & Gilbert Mensah & Judith Aku Masope-Crabbe, 2021. "Choice, Purchase Decision and Post-Purchase Dissonance: The Social Media Perspective," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13.
    14. Dan Ke & Anran Chen & Chenting Su, 2016. "Online trust-building mechanisms for existing brands: the moderating role of the e-business platform certification system," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 189-216, June.
    15. Lambert, Stephanie A. & Herbert, Ian P. & Rothwell, Andrew T., 2020. "Rethinking the Career Anchors Inventory framework with insights from a finance transformation field study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    16. Reshmi Banerjee & Avani Desai, 2021. "A Study of Competencies and Challenges of Indian Women Entrepreneurs," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 105-130.
    17. Hannah Han & Fan Yang & Sarah Murray & Gaspar Mbita & Maggie Bangser & Katherine Rucinski & Albert Komba & Caterina Casalini & Mary Drake & Esther Majani & Kelly Curran & Yeronimo Mlawa & Agnes Junga , 2021. "Characterizing a sexual health and HIV risk stratification scale for sexually active adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Xiangbin Yan & Jing Wang & Michael Chau, 2015. "Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from online reviews," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 645-657, June.
    19. Henner Gimpel & Tobias Manner-Romberg & Fabian Schmied & Till J. Winkler, 2021. "Understanding the evaluation of mHealth app features based on a cross-country Kano analysis," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(4), pages 765-794, December.
    20. Khasawneh, Odai Y., 2018. "Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 93-100.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Shared decision-making; SDM-Q-9; Primary care; Specialised care; Psychometrics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01061-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.