IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0132158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 Care

Author

Listed:
  • 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

Abstract

Purpose: The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics. Methods: Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used. Results: Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded. Conclusion: The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0132158
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132158
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132158&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0132158?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. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.
    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. 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.
    3. Chia-Hsien Chen & Hsin-Yi Chuang & Yen Lee & Glyn Elwyn & Wen-Hsuan Hou & Ken N. Kuo, 2022. "Relationships among Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes for Shared Decision Making: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 352-363, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Anders Broström & Bengt Fridlund & Berith Hedberg & Per Nilsen & Martin Ulander, 2017. "Communication between patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome and healthcare personnel during the initial visit to a continuous positive airway pressure clinic," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3-4), pages 568-577, February.
    3. Maya Kylén & Ulla-Karin Schön & Hélène Pessah-Rasmussen & Marie Elf, 2022. "Patient Participation and the Environment: A Scoping Review of Instruments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Francesco Baratta & Francesco Angelico & Maria Del Ben, 2023. "Challenges in Improving Adherence to Diet and Drug Treatment in Hypercholesterolemia Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-12, May.
    5. Michael Brown & Anna Higgins & Juliet MacArthur, 2020. "Transition from child to adult health services: A qualitative study of the views and experiences of families of young adults with intellectual disabilities," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1-2), pages 195-207, January.
    6. Mara Gorli & Serena Barello, 2021. "Patient Centredness, Values, Equity and Sustainability: Professional, Organizational and Institutional Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-7, November.
    7. Rami H. Al-Rifai & Iffat Elbarazi & Nasloon Ali & Tom Loney & Abderrahim Oulhaj & Luai A. Ahmed, 2020. "Knowledge and Preference Towards Mode of Delivery among Pregnant Women in the United Arab Emirates: The Mutaba’ah Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Meron Hirpa & Tinsay Woreta & Hilena Addis & Sosena Kebede, 2020. "What matters to patients? A timely question for value-based care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Yuko Goto & Hisayuki Miura, 2022. "Validation of the Novel Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Team Building in Patient-Centered Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Lama Sultan & Basim Alsaywid & Nynke De Jong & Jascha De Nooijer, 2022. "Current Trends in Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Programmes in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-39, October.
    11. Semra Ozdemir & Isha Chaudhry & Si Ning Germaine Tan & Irene Teo & Chetna Malhotra & Rahul Malhotra & Eric Andrew Finkelstein, 2023. "Variation in Patient-Reported Decision-Making Roles in the Last Year of Life among Patients with Metastatic Cancer: A Longitudinal Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 203-213, February.
    12. Charlotte Ytterberg & Hanne Kaae Kristensen & Malin Tistad & Lena von Koch, 2020. "Factors related to met needs for rehabilitation 6 years after stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    13. repec:oup:jconrs:v:49:y:2023:i:5:p:926-939. is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jayoung Han & Paiboon Jungsuwadee & Olufunmilola Abraham & Dongwoo Ko, 2018. "Shared Decision-Making and Women’s Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    15. Aleksandra Kołtuniuk & Justyna Chojdak-Łukasiewicz, 2022. "Adherence to Therapy in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis—Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-9, February.
    16. Arwen H. Pieterse & Kim Brandes & Jessica de Graaf & Joyce E. de Boer & Nanon H. M. Labrie & Anouk Knops & Cornelia F. Allaart & Johanna E. A. Portielje & Willem Jan W. Bos & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2022. "Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 375-386, April.
    17. Semra Ozdemir & Jia Jia Lee & Khung Keong Yeo & Kheng Leng David Sim & Eric Andrew Finkelstein & Chetna Malhotra, 2023. "A Prospective Cohort Study of Medical Decision-Making Roles and Their Associations with Patient Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcomes among Patients with Heart Failure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 863-874, October.
    18. Ruth E Pel-Littel & Cynthia S Hofman & Liesje Yu & Silke F Metzelthin & Franca H Leeuwis & Jeanet W Blom & B M Buurman & Mirella M Minkman, 2019. "Recommendations of older adults on how to use the PROM ‘TOPICS-MDS’ in healthcare conversations: A Delphi study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0132158. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.