IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i1p114-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN’SDM

Author

Listed:
  • David Forner

    (Division of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
    Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Christopher W. Noel

    (Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Laura Boland

    (Knowledge Translation Laboratory, Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada
    Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Arwen H. Pieterse

    (Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands)

  • Cornelia M. Borkhoff

    (Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Pediatric Outcomes Research Team, Department of Pediatrics and Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Paul Hong

    (Division of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada)

Abstract

Objective Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN’SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN’SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used. Methods This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN’SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified. Results Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN’SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN’SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN’SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date. Conclusion The MAPPIN’SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.

Suggested Citation

  • David Forner & Christopher W. Noel & Laura Boland & Arwen H. Pieterse & Cornelia M. Borkhoff & Paul Hong, 2022. "The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN’SDM," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 114-124, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:114-124
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211010738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211010738
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211010738?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
    ---><---

    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:42:y:2022:i:1:p:114-124. 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.