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

Abstract

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.

Introducing a time out consultation with the general practitioner between diagnosis and start of colorectal cancer treatment: Patient‐reported outcomes

“…The survey used in patients both before and after the introduction of the time out consultation was identical and provided information on patient‐GP relations, and specifics of any GP consultations. Furthermore, it consisted of validated questionnaires to measure the outcomes of shared decision‐making mentioned in the introduction: Patient Activation Measure (PAM‐13; Hibbard, Stockard, Mahoney, & Tusler, ), Perceived Efficacy in Patient–Physician Interactions (PEPPI‐5; Maly, Frank, Marshall, DiMatteo, & Reuben, ), Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM‐Q‐9; Rodenburg‐Vandenbussche et al, ), Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS‐16; Koedoot et al, ; O'Connor, ) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer in patient satisfaction score (EORTC IN‐PATSAT‐32; Bredart et al, ). Appendix contains the entire composite questionnaire.…”

Psychometrics of shared decision making and communication as patient centered measures for two language groups.

“…Again Cronbach’s alpha was .94 (Glass et al, 2012). The measure has also been studied in Spanish and Dutch primary care samples (De Las Cuevas et al, 2014; Rodenburg-Vandenbussche et al, 2015). To our knowledge, the psychometrics of the scale have not been studied for patients who see a behavioral health provider.…”

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires

“…Finally, we created an item pool for the patient questionnaire by formulating five or more potential items per domain. If available, we used phrasings that patients had used in an earlier interview study and included relevant items from the SDM‐Q‐9 . We asked the international SDM experts for feedback on how well the proposed items reflected the domains, and the research team made a definitive selection of items to present to patients during content validity testing.…”