The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample

Kriston, Levente; Scholl, Isabelle; Hölzel, Lars P.; Simón, Daniela; Loh, Andreas; Härter, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034

Cited by 652 publications

(660 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

638

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To evaluate the decision-making process, patients and clinicians completed the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (8,9). This instrument consists of nine statements, which can be rated on a six-point scale from 0 = ''completely disagree'' to 5 = ''completely agree.''…”

Section: Evaluation Of Tool's Impact On Patient-important Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and Pilot Testing of an Encounter Tool for Shared Decision Making About the Treatment of Graves' Disease

Brito

Castañeda-Guarderas

Gionfriddo

et al. 2015

Thyroid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Evaluation Of Tool's Impact On Patient-important Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To estimate the sample size, a standard deviation difference was used in a continuous outcome (SDM-Q-9 scale) (9). Sample size estimates are based on having 80% power to detect a minimum difference of 10 points on a two-sided test (a = 0.05).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Tool's Impact On Patient-important Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Pilot Testing of an Encounter Tool for Shared Decision Making About the Treatment of Graves' Disease

Brito

Castañeda-Guarderas

Gionfriddo

et al. 2015

Thyroid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4 We reframed the questions to be from the clinician's perspective. Response options included completely agree, strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, and completely disagree.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared Decision Making in the Safety Net: Where Do We Go from Here?

Bouma

Tiedje

Poplau

et al. 2014

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied.Methods: We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment.Results

show abstract

“…It has 2 versions: 1 that assesses the perspective of a patient (SDM-Q-9) 51 and another that assesses the perspective of a healthcare provider (SDM-Q-Doc). 52 Both versions have shown to be acceptable, reliable, and have factorial validity 51,52 ; a US-based study found indicators of convergent validity. 53 The patient version has been tested in a subsample of patients with cardiovascular disease, showing appropriate psychometric properties.…”

Section: Review Of Key Measurement Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…53 The patient version has been tested in a subsample of patients with cardiovascular disease, showing appropriate psychometric properties. 51 One of the main advantages is that they are brief tools with 9 items only. A further benefit is that the original German version has been translated into 9 other languages (Dutch, English, French, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, and Spanish) and thus also offers a possibility to compare research results across countries or to pool data.…”

Section: Review Of Key Measurement Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Shared Decision Making

Sepucha

Scholl

2014

Circ: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past few decades, patient-centeredness has gained in importance, 1,2 and policies to promote patient-centered care have been increasing.3 Several different models of patient-centered care have been described. Although these models vary on their specific definitions and dimensions, they all emphasize the importance of facilitating the engagement of patients in their own healthcare decisions. 1,4,5 In some cases, facilitating patient engagement in decisions focuses on ensuring patients receive proven, effective care and do not receive proven, ineffective care. In cardiology, these situations often correspond to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association class I or III recommendations with strong evidence, and the quality of decisions can be measured by the percentage of eligible patients who receive care that is consistent with the guidelines. Several quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum for cardiovascular care fall into these situations, such as the percentage of patients who receive β-blockers at discharge from cardiac surgery or persistence of β-blocker usage after a heart attack except for those patients at low risk.However, even in situations with class I recommendations, some questions arise in implementing these recommendations into clinical care. For example, the high nonadherence rates for β-blocker therapy (or statin therapy) suggest that patients think differently about the tradeoffs between the potentially modest survival gain and the side effects of the therapy. 6,7 In these cases, is it acceptable for patients to decline therapy, and if so, what if any documentation might we need to be confident that the decision was informed and high quality?As Brindis and Walsh 8 highlight in their presidential address, decisions, such as the use of statins for primary prevention, treatment of atrial fibrillation, valve replacement (eg, the use of tissue or mechanical valves), and use of implantable cardiac defibrillators, are all common ones for which there is not one clear best choice. In these situations, patients and providers need to consider the evidence and preferences of individual patients to select a treatment. Understanding and measuring the quality of decisions when there are multiple appropriate options require more than examining treatment rates.One approach that supports increased patient engagement in medical decision making is the model of shared decision making (SDM). The concept of SDM was first described in the 1980s 9,10 and is an interactive process between patients (and family members) and the healthcare team to ensure that decisions are evidence based and patient centered. The key elements of SDM in the visit include defining and explaining the problem, helping patients (and providers) to recognize that a decision needs to be made, presenting options, discussing the pros and cons (ie, the outcomes in terms of benefits and risks and costs) of each option, eliciting patients' goals and concerns (ie, finding out what matters most to them), discussing the...

show abstract

The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample

Cited by 652 publications

References 14 publications

Development and Pilot Testing of an Encounter Tool for Shared Decision Making About the Treatment of Graves' Disease

Development and Pilot Testing of an Encounter Tool for Shared Decision Making About the Treatment of Graves' Disease

Shared Decision Making in the Safety Net: Where Do We Go from Here?

Measuring Shared Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About