Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q)

Simón, Daniela; Schorr, G.; Wirtz, Markus; Vodermaier, Andrea; Caspari, Cornelia; Neuner, Bruno; Spies, Claudia; Krones, Tanja; Keller, Heidi; Edwards, Adrian; Loh, Andreas; Härter, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.04.012

Cited by 151 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A subsample of 77 encounters were videotaped and physicians' performance was rated with the Observing-Patient-Involvement (OPTION) instrument [22], while the degree of SDM from the patient perspective was rated with the SDM-Questionnaire [23] and with the above mentioned CPS in the post consultation version [21]. As expected, patients gave higher ratings of involvement compared to raters' observations.…”

Section: Isdims -Informed Shared Decision-making In Ms Immunotherapy mentioning

confidence: 89%

Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: New treatment complexities urge patient engagement

Heesen

Solari²,

Giordano³

et al. 2011

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Isdims -Informed Shared Decision-making In Ms Immunotherapy mentioning

confidence: 89%

Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: New treatment complexities urge patient engagement

Heesen

Solari²,

Giordano³

et al. 2011

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The former evaluates 9 stages of the decision-making process according to published theoretical frameworks. 4,31,32 After a pilot test, 29 we decided to use a short form of the SDM-Q scale in which dichotomous items represent each predefi ned step. We analyzed every item and calculated sum scores of all items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…to German studies on shared decision making [30][31][32] in family practice, an average cluster size of 15, and estimated a design effect of D = 1+(15-1) × 0.088 = 2.232. Thus, to have adequate power, the sample size had to be increased to 786 patients (393 per group).…”

Section: Sample Size Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Krones¹,

Keller²,

Sönnichsen³

et al. 2008

The Annals of Family Medicine

Self Cite

172

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE We wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations. METHODSThe study was based on a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (phase III) with continuing medical education (CME) groups of family physicians as the unit of randomization. In the intervention arm, 44 physicians (7 CME groups) consecutively recruited 550 patients in whom cholesterol levels were measured. Forty-seven physicians in the control arm (7 CME groups) similarly included 582 patients. Four hundred sixty patients (83.6%) of the intervention arm and 466 patients (80.1%) of the control arm were seen at follow-up. Physicians attended 2 interactive CME sessions and received a booklet, a paper-based risk calculator, and individual summary sheets for each patient. Control physicians attended 1 CME-session on an alternative topic. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction and participation after the index consultation, change in CVD risk status, and decisional regret at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTSIntervention patients were signifi cantly more satisfi ed with process and result (Patient Participation Scale, difference 0.80, P <.001). Decisional regret was signifi cantly lower at follow-up (difference 3.39, P = .02). CVD risk decreased in both groups without a signifi cant difference between study arms. CONCLUSION A simple transactional decision aid based on calculating absolute individual CVD risk and promoting shared decision making in CVD prevention can be disseminated through CME groups and may lead to higher patient satisfaction and involvement and less decisional regret, without negatively affecting global CVD risk.

show abstract

“…To measure the extent to which patients are included in decision-making processes, the ''9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)'' was used [38]. The questionnaire can be applied across different diseases and is oriented toward the nine treatment steps of SDM [5,38,39]. The items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 0 (''completely disagree'') to 5 (''completely agree'').…”

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing the effects of shared decision-making, empathy and team interaction on patient satisfaction and treatment acceptance in medical rehabilitation using a structural equation modeling approach

Quaschning

Körner

Wirtz

2013

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q)

Cited by 151 publications

References 28 publications

Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: New treatment complexities urge patient engagement

Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: New treatment complexities urge patient engagement

Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Analyzing the effects of shared decision-making, empathy and team interaction on patient satisfaction and treatment acceptance in medical rehabilitation using a structural equation modeling approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About