Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies—A systematic review

Doherr, Hanna; Christalle, Eva; Kriston, Levente; Härter, Martin; Scholl, Isabelle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173904

Cited by 99 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other subjective metrics, such as the SDM‐Q‐9 and SDM‐Q‐Doc questionnaires, showed slightly higher levels of SDM in surgery than in other medical specialties. For example, Doherr and co‐workers reported mean total SDM‐Q‐9 and SDM‐Q‐Doc scores ranging from 42 to 75 per cent. These high subjective SDM levels in surgical studies may also be caused by a misinterpretation of the informed consent procedure for SDM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Mik

Stubenrouch

Balm

et al. 2018

British Journal of Surgery

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMultiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM‐related outcomes.MethodsThis was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently.ResultsThirty‐two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty‐six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient‐ or surgeon‐driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision‐making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty‐five different SDM‐related outcomes were reported.ConclusionAt present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Mik

Stubenrouch

Balm

et al. 2018

British Journal of Surgery

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has made comparisons and examination of the effects of collaborative provider-patient interventions difficult. 22,23 In two randomized controlled trials, nurse-led information provision and counseling were shown to have the potential to increase informed choices. 24,25 However, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of information-sharing approaches between providers and patients with MS found mixed results.…”

Section: Assessment Of Adherence and Sdmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 The SDM-Q-9, in which patients evaluate the quality of nine aspects of the decision-making process, 28 is the most frequently used of the three scales. 22 However, a systematic review of studies evaluating the SDM-Q-9 revealed poor quality of evidence, suggesting that its value as an assessment tool may be limited. 22…”

Section: Assessment Of Adherence and Sdmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Shared Decision Making on Disease-Modifying Drug Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis

Ben-Zacharia¹,

Adamson²,

Boyd³

et al. 2018

International Journal of MS Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CME/CNE Information Activity Available Online: To access the article, post-test, and evaluation online, go to http://www.cmscscholar.org. Target Audience: The target audience for this activity is physicians, physician assistants, nursing professionals, and other health-care providers involved in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Learning Objectives: Accreditation Statement: In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) and Delaware Media Group. CMSC is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team. Physician Credit The CMSC designates this journal-based activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Nurse Credit The CMSC designates this enduring material for 1.0 contact hours (none in the area of pharmacology). Disclosures: , Editor in Chief of the International Journal of MS Care (IJMSC), has served as Physician Planner for this activity. He has received royalties from Springer Publishing, served on a speakers' bureau for Biogen, and done contracted research for Adamas Pharmaceuticals.Francois Bethoux, MD , has served as reviewer for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP , has received consulting fees from Biogen, Bayer, EMD Serono, Celgene, Novartis, Genentech, and Genzyme and research grants from Biogen and Novartis.Aliza Ben-Zacharia, DNP, ANP, MSCN , has served on speakers' bureaus for Biogen, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, Genzyme, Acorda, Teva, and Mallinckrodt.Meagan Adamson, DNP, FNP-BC, MSCN , has received consulting fees from Genzyme, served on a speakers' bureau/advisory board for EMD Serono, and has been a speaker for Teva Neurosciences and Biogen.Allison Boyd, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS , has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Paula Hardeman, MPAS, PA-C , has served on advisory boards for Biogen, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience and as a speaker for EMD Serono, Genentech, Mallinckrodt, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience; she receives salary from Biogen.Jennifer Smrtka, MSN, ARNP-C, MSCN , has received consulting fees from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Sanofi Genzyme and served on speakers' bureaus for Novartis and Biogen.Bryan Walker, MHS, PA-C , has received grant support from EMD Serono, Genzyme, and Teva and personal fees from Acorda, Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Mallinckrodt, and Teva, and served on speakers' bureaus for EMD Serono, Acorda, Teva, and Genzyme.Tracy Walker, FNP-C, WOCN, MSCN One peer reviewer for the IJMSC has received consulting fees from and participated on speakers' bureaus for Biogen, Novartis, Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, and EMD Serono. The other peer reviewer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The staff at the IJMSC, CMSC, and Delaware Media Group who are in a position to influence content have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Note: Financial relationships for some authors may have changed in the interval between listing these disclosures and publication of the article. Method of Participation: Release Date: December 1, 2018 Valid for Credit Through: December 1, 2019 In order to receive CME/CNE credit, participants must: Statements of Credit are awarded upon successful completion of the post-test with a passing score of >70% and the evaluation. There is no fee to participate in this activity. Disclosure of Unlabeled Use: This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not approved by the FDA. CMSC and Delaware Media Group do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications. The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of CMSC or Delaware Media Group. Disclaimer: Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any medications, diagnostic procedures, or treatments discussed in this publication should not be used by clinicians or other health-care professionals without first evaluating their patients' conditions, considering possible contraindications or risks, reviewing any applicable manufacturer's product information, and comparing any therapeutic approach with the recommendations of other authorities.

show abstract

“…To evaluate implementation, ED providers and staff will be asked to complete baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month CFIR surveys to evaluate the implementation process, with attention to acceptability, implementation barriers, and facilitators. A validated 3item pediatric CollaboRate survey and 9-item questionnaire SDM-Q-DOC will evaluate the decisional process in medical encounters from the physicians' perspectives at the specified time points [42][43][44]. Patient satisfaction with Coach McLungs SM will be assessed using the oneitem Net Promoter Score question [45][46][47].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for pediatric patients with asthma in the emergency department

Reeves

O’Hare

Shade

et al. 2020

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Asthma is a difficult-to-manage chronic disease marked with associated outcome disparities including an increase rate of emergency department (ED) visits for uncontrolled asthma among patients who are most at-risk. Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which the patient and provider jointly make a healthcare choice. SDM improves patient outcomes; however, implementation barriers of time constraints and staff availability are limitations. The use of health IT solutions may increase the adoption of SDM, but best practices for implementation are not well understood. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a flexible comprehensive model used to identify barriers and facilitators influencing implementation. The goal of this study is to implement an innovative web-based pediatric SDM tool in the real-world setting of two large healthcare system EDs through the following aims: (1) convene a patient, research, and ED stakeholder advisory board to oversee review of protocol and study materials prior to implementation, (2) implement the SDM intervention where providers and staff will be trained to incorporate use of this SDM intervention, (3) conduct on-going evaluation of barriers, facilitators, and implementation outcomes to tailor implementation in the EDs, (4) evaluate patientcentered outcomes of primary care utilization and changes in ED visits and hospitalizations before and after the SDM intervention, and (5) understand and document best practices for ED implementation. Methods: The CFIR model will guide the implementation evaluation. Researchers will administer surveys to the clinical team and patients at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months to inform implementation design, determine barriers and facilitators, and resource-needs to allow for real-time process adjustments within the EDs. Focus group or keyinformant interviews and analysis will provide additional feedback to the stakeholder team to iterate the implementation process. Researchers will track patient-centered outcomes including increased primary care, ED, and inpatient utilization over the duration of the study. Discussion: To advance asthma care and the field of implementation science, further research is needed to assess best practices for incorporating SDM into high-need healthcare settings such as the ED. This knowledge will facilitate improved outcomes and appropriate policy changes towards further use of SDM interventions in local and national acute care settings.

show abstract

Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies—A systematic review

Cited by 99 publications

References 63 publications

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Impact of Shared Decision Making on Disease-Modifying Drug Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis

Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for pediatric patients with asthma in the emergency department

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About