PurposeThe 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.MethodsParticipants 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.ResultsReliabilities 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.ConclusionThe 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.

ObjectiveAbout 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes achieve all their treatment targets. Shared decision making (SDM) using a support aid based on the 5‐years results of the ADDITION study on multifactorial treatment, could increase this proportion.Research design and methodsCluster‐randomized trial in 35 former ADDITION primary care practices. Practices were randomized to SDM or care as usual (1:1). Both ADDITION and non‐ADDITION type 2 diabetes patients, 60‐80 years, known with diabetes for 8‐12 years, were included. In the intervention group, patients were presented evidence about the relationship between treatment intensity and cardiovascular events. They chose intensive or less intensive treatment and prioritized their targets. After 1 year priorities could be rearranged. Follow‐up: 24 months. Intention‐to‐treat analysis. Main outcome measure: proportion of patients that achieved all three treatment targets.ResultsAt baseline 26.4% in the SDM group (n=72) had already achieved all three treatment goals (CG: 23.5%, n=81). In the SDM group 44 patients chose intensive treatment, 25 continued their former less intensive treatment and three people switched from the more to the less intensive protocol. After 24 months 31.8% of the patients in the SDM group achieved all three treatment targets (CG: 25.3%), RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.81‐1.95). Mean systolic blood pressure decreased in the SDM group (−5.4 mm Hg, P<.01), mean HbA1c and total cholesterol did not change.ConclusionsDespite an already high baseline level of diabetes care, we found strong indications that SDM on both intensity of treatment and prioritizing treatment goals further improved outcomes.

We aimed to identify metabolites to predict patients’ response to glucose lowering treatment during the first 5 years after detection of type 2 diabetes. Metabolites were measured by GC–MS in baseline samples from 346 screen-detected type 2 diabetes patients in the ADDITION-NL study. The response to treatment with metformin and/or sulphonylurea (SU) was analysed to identify metabolites predictive of 5 year HbA1c change by multiple regression analysis. Baseline glucose and 1,5 anhydro-glucitol were associated with HbA1c decrease in all medication groups. In patients on SU no other metabolite was associated with HbA1c decrease. A larger set of metabolites was associated with HbA1c change in the metformin and the combination therapy (metformin + SU) groups. These metabolites included metabolites related to liver metabolism, such as 2-hydroxybutanoic acid, 3-hydroxybutanoic acid, 2-hydroxypiperidine and 4-oxoproline). Metabolites involved in oxidative stress and insulin resistance were higher when the HbA1c decrease was larger in the metformin/sulphonylurea group. The associations between baseline metabolites and responsiveness to medication are in line with its mode of action. If these results could be replicated in other populations, the most promising predictive candidates might be tested to assess whether they could enhance personalised treatment.

BackgroundNo more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that percentage; however, not all support decision tools are appropriate. Because the ADDITION-Europe study demonstrated two (almost) equally effective treatments but with slightly different intensities, it may be a good starting point to discuss with the patients their diabetes treatment, taking into account both the intensity of treatment, clinical factors and patients’ preferences. We aim to evaluate whether such an approach increases the proportion of patients that achieve all three treatment goals.MethodsIn a cluster-randomised trial including 40 general practices, that participated until 2009 in the ADDITION Study, 150 T2DM patients 60–80 years, known with T2DM for 8-15 years, will be included. Practices are randomised a second time, i.e. intervention practices in the ADDITION study could be control practices in the current study and vice versa. For the GPs from the intervention group a 2-hour training in SDM was developed as well as a decision support tool to be used during the consultation. GPs plan the first visit with the patients to decide on the intensity of the treatment, personalised targets and the priorities of treatment. The control group will continue with the treatment they were allocated to in the ADDITION study. Follow-up: 24 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve all three treatment goals. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who achieve five treatment goals (HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body weight, not smoking), evaluation of the SDM process (SDM-Q9 and CPS), satisfaction with the treatment (DTSQ), wellbeing and quality of life (W-BQ12, ADD QoL-19), health status (SF-36, EQ-5D) and coping (DCMQ). The proportions of achieved treatment goals will be compared between both groups. For the secondary outcomes mixed models will be used. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht has approved the study protocol (Protocol number: 11-153).DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence whether an intervention with a multi-faceted decision support tool increases the proportion of achieved personalised goals in type 2 diabetes patients.Trial registrationNCT02285881, November 4, 2014

Patients appeared to differ from doctors in views on respiratory tract symptoms. The results stress the importance of exploring patients' views when being confronted by patients suffering from respiratory tract symptoms.