Validation of a Decision Regret Scale

Brehaut, Jamie; O’Connor, Annette M.; Wood, Timothy J.; Hack, Thomas F.; Siminoff, Laura A.; Gordon, Elisa J.; Feldman‐Stewart, Deb

doi:10.1177/0272989x03256005

Cited by 1,046 publications

(1,121 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,061

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar item has been used in other studies to assess prostate cancer screening behavior (Glenn et al, 2012) Decision regret. Distress or remorse following a decision about PSA testing was assessed at 12 months using the validated Decision Regret Scale (Brehaut et al, 2003; 5 items, response options: 1 ϭ "strongly agree" through 5 ϭ "strongly disagree"). Scores were converted to a 0 -100 scale, and each item was summed and averaged to obtain a final score: 0 (no regret) to 100 (high regret; O'Connor, 1996bO'Connor, [updated 2003]).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online prostate cancer screening decision aid for at-risk men: A randomized trial.

Watts¹,

Meiser²,

Wakefield³

et al. 2014

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study examines the efficacy of an online screening decision aid (DA) for men with a family history of prostate cancer. Methods: Unaffected Australian men (40–79 years) with at least one affected relative completed the first online questionnaire, were randomized to read either the tailored DA (intervention) or nontailored information about prostate cancer screening (control), then completed a questionnaire postreading and 12 months later. The primary outcome was decisional conflict regarding prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing. The impact of the DA on longitudinal outcomes was analyzed by using random intercept mixed effects models. Logistic and linear regressions were used to analyze the impact of the DA on screening behavior and decision regret. Stage of decision-making was tested as a moderator for decisional conflict and decision regret. The frequency of online material access was recorded. Results: The DA had no effect on decisional conflict, knowledge, inclination toward PSA testing, accuracy of perceived risk, or screening behavior. However, among men considering PSA testing, those who read the DA had lower decision regret compared with men who read the control materials, β = 0.34, p < .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.22, .53]. Conclusions: This is the first study to our knowledge to evaluate the uptake and efficacy of an online screening DA among men with a family history of prostate cancer. Men who were undecided about screening at baseline benefitted from the DA, experiencing less regret 12 months later. In relation to decisional conflict, the control materials may have operated as a less complex and equally informative DA.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online prostate cancer screening decision aid for at-risk men: A randomized trial.

Watts¹,

Meiser²,

Wakefield³

et al. 2014

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The distinction between regret and remorse is particularly ambiguous and researchers often use the terms interchangeably (Brehaut et al, 2003;Connolly et al, 1997;Roese & Summerville, 2006;Smith et al, 2002). The lexicon does little to help, defining remorse as a feeling of "compunction, deep regret, (emphasis added) for a sin or wrong committed" (OED, 1991).…”

Section: What We Know About Regretmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The increasing involvement of patients in medical decision making is seen as a major source of potential regret (Brehaut et al, 2003) and the anticipation of regret is recognised as something likely to shape treatment choices. Brodensen, Sutton, Goff, Hodgson and Thomas (2004) asked people with a family history of colorectal cancer to anticipate the emotions that might follow from their decisions to undergo genetic screening or not.…”

Section: Anticipated Regretmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regret as autobiographical memory

Davison

Feeney

2008

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

show abstract

“…Several scales have been developed: the Decisional Conflict Scale [9], comprising the subscales Uncertainty, and Factors Contributing to Uncertainty; the Effective Decision Making scales; [9] the Satisfaction with Decision scale [11], the Decision Attitude Scale [4], the Satisfaction with decision making process questionnaire [12], the Satisfaction with Decision Made Questionnaire [12], the Decision Self Efficacy Scale [13] the Decision Emotional Control scale [13], and the Decision Regret scale [14]. In general, these scales have shown good internal reliability (Cronbach's a), and test-retest reliability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additional concepts were considered. These concepts emerged after reviewing the above literature [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], and the decision making, social psychological, health psychological, and coping literatures. The following concepts were identified: (1) affective evaluation including uncertainty and satisfaction with the decision; (2) informed choice; (3) effective decision making; (4) responsibility, blame, control; (5) perceived riskiness; (6) social support and social approval.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The decision evaluation scales

Stalmeier

Roosmalen²,

Verhoef³

et al. 2005

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are several instruments to assess how patients evaluate their medical treatment choice. These are used to evaluate decision aids. Our objective is to investigate which psychological factors play a role when patients evaluate their medical treatment choices. A pool of 36 items was constructed, covering concepts such as uncertainty about and satisfaction with the decision, informed choice, effective decision making, responsibility for the decision, perceived riskiness of the choice, and social support regarding the decision. This pool was presented to patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer, awaiting a genetic test result, and facing the choice between prophylactic surgery or screening. Additional measures were assessed for validation purposes. Factor and Rasch analyses were used for factor and item selection. Construct validity of emerging scales was assessed by relating them with the additional measures. Three factors summarised the psychological factors concerning decision evaluation: Satisfaction-Uncertainty, Informed Choice, and Decision Control. Reliabilities (Cronbach's a) of the three scales were 0.79, 0.85, and 0.75, respectively. Construct validity hypotheses were confirmed. The first two scales were similar to previously developed scales. Of these three scales, the Decision Control scale correlated most strongly with the well-being measures, was associated with partner's agreement and physician's preferences as perceived by patients, and with a negative emotional reaction to the information material. In conclusion, the Decision Control scale is a new scale to evaluate decision aids, and it appears to be rooted in health psychological theories.

show abstract

Validation of a Decision Regret Scale

Abstract: The scale is a useful indicator of health care decision regret at a given point in time.

Cited by 1,046 publications

References 57 publications

Online prostate cancer screening decision aid for at-risk men: A randomized trial.

Online prostate cancer screening decision aid for at-risk men: A randomized trial.

Regret as autobiographical memory

The decision evaluation scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About