Psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in oncology practice

  1. Caterina Calderon 1
  2. Paula Jiménez-Fonseca 2
  3. Pere Joan Ferrando 3
  4. Carlos Jara 4
  5. Urbano Lorenzo-Seva 3
  6. Carmen Beato 5
  7. Teresa García-García 6
  8. Beatriz Castelo 7
  9. Avinash Ramchandani 8
  10. María Mar Muñoz 9
  11. Eva Martínez de Castro 10
  12. Ismael Ghanem 7
  13. Montse Mangas 11
  14. Alberto Carmona-Bayonas 6
  1. 1 Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, University of Barcelona
  2. 2 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Universitario Central of Asturias
  3. 3 Rovira and Virgili University
  4. 4 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón
  5. 5 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Grupo Quirón, Sevilla
  6. 6 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer
  7. 7 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Universitario La Paz
  8. 8 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria
  9. 9 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Virgen de La Luz
  10. 10 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla
  11. 11 Department of Medical Oncology. Hospital Galdakao -Usansolo
Show affiliations +
Journal:
International journal of clinical and health psychology

ISSN: 1697-2600

Year of publication: 2018

Volume: 18

Issue: 2

Pages: 143-151

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.IJCHP.2017.12.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: International journal of clinical and health psychology

Abstract

Background/Objective: This study sought to assess the psychometric properties of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in patients with resected, non-metastatic cancer and eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. Method: A total of 568 patients were recruited from a multi-institutional, prospective, transversal study. Patients answered the SDM-Q-9 after visiting their medical oncologist who, in turn, completed the SDM-Q–Physician version. Reliability, factorial structures [exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)], and convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 scores were explored. Results: SDM-Q-9 showed a clear factorial structure, compatible with a strong and replicable general factor and a secondary group factor, in patients with resected, non-metastatic cancer. Total sum scores derived from the general factor showed good reliability in terms of omega coefficient: .90. The association between patient and physician perception of SDM was weak and failed to reach statistical significance. Males and patients over 60 years of age displayed the greatest satisfaction with SDM. Conclusions: SDM-Q-9 can aid in evaluating SDM from the cancer patients’ perspective. SDM-Q-9 is helpful in studies examining patient perspectives of SDM and as an indicator of the degree of quality and satisfaction with health care and patient-physician relationship.

€ View funding

Funding information

This work was funded by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) in 2015. The sponsor of this research has not participated in data collection, analysis, or interpretation, in writing the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Calderon, C., Ferrando, P. J., Carmona-Bayonas, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Jara, C., Beato, C., García, T., Ramchandani, A., Castelo, B., Muñoz, M. M., García, S., Higuera, O., Mangas-Izquierdo, M., & Jimenez-Fonseca, P. (2017). Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician’s perspective in oncology practice. Clinical and Translational Oncology, 19, 1312---1319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1671-9
  • Carretero-Dios, H., & Pérez, C. (2005). Normas para el desarrollo y revisión de estudios instrumentales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5, 521---551.
  • Chewning, B., Bylund, C. L., Shah, B., Arora, N. K., Gueguen, J. A., & Makoul, G. (2012). Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, 86, 9---18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004
  • Coulter, A., & Collins, A. (2011). Making Shared Decision-Making a Reality. London: King’s Fund.
  • Coulter, A., Parsons, S., & Askham, J. (2008). Where are the patients in decision-making about their own care? Health Systems. Health and Wealth, 1---26. Available from: http://www.who.int/management/general/decisionmaking/ WhereArePatientsinDecisionMaking.pdf
  • De la Torre-Luque, A., Gambara, H., López, E., & Cruzado, J. A. (2016). Psychological treatments to improve quality of life in cancer contexts: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 211---219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.07.005
  • De las Cuevas, C., Perestelo-Perez, L., Rivero-Santana, A., Cebolla-Martí, A., Scholl, I., & Härter, M. (2015). Validation of the Spanish version of the 9-item Shared DecisionMaking Questionnaire. Health Expectations, 18, 2143---2153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12183
  • Elwyn, G., Dehlendorf, C., Epstein, R., Marrin, K., White, J., & Frosch, D. (2014). Shared decision making and motivational interveiwing: Achieving patient-centred care across the spectrum of health care problems. Annals of Family Medicine, 12, 270---275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1370/afm.1615
  • Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Unrestricted item factor analysis and some relations with item response theory,. Retrieved from http://psico.Fcep.Urv.Es/utilitats/factor
  • Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Assessing the Quality and Appropriateness of Factor Solutions and Factor Score Estimates in Exploratory Item Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Advance Online Publication, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719308
  • Jönsson, B., Hofmarcher, T., Lindgren, P., & Wilking, N. (2016). The cost and burden of cancer in the European Union 1995-2014. European Journal of Cancer, 66, 162---170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.022
  • Kriston, L., Scholl, I., Hölzel, L., Simon, D., Loh, A., & Härter, M. (2010). The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Education and Counseling, 80, 94---99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034
  • Libert, Y., Canivet, D., Ménard, C., Van Achte, L., Farvacques, C., Merckaert, I., Liénard, A., Klastersky, J., Reynaert, C., Slachmuylder, J. L., Durieux, J. F., Delvaux, N., & Razavi, D. (2017). Predictors of physicians’ communication performance in a decision-making encounter with a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient: A longitudinal study. Patient Education and Counseling, 100, 1672---1679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.025
  • Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2: A Comprehensive Program for Fitting Exploratory and Semiconfirmatory Factor Analysis and IRT Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 497---498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794
  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2000). Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 1087---1110. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11005395
  • O’Connor, A. M., Bennett, C. L., Stacey, D., Barry, M., Col, N. F., Eden, K. B., Entwistle, V. A., Fiset, V., Holmes-Rovner, M., Khanqura, S., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., & Rovner, D. (2009). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD001431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2
  • Olson, D. P., & Windish, D. M. (2010). Communication discrepancies between physicians and hospitalized patients. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 1302---1307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.239
  • Ramos-Álvarez, M. M., Moreno-Fernández, M. M., Valdés-Conroy, B., & Catena, A. (2008). Criteria of the peer review process for publication of experimental and quasi-experimental research in Psychology: A guide for creating research papers. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8, 751---764.
  • Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, S., Pieterse, A. H., Kroonenberg, P. M., Scholl, I., van der Weijden, T., Luyten, G. P. M., Kruitwagen, R. F., den Ouden, H., Carlier, I. V., van Vliet, I. M., Zitman, F. G., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2015). 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. PLOS ONE, 10, e0132158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132158
  • Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137---150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23---74.
  • Scholl, I., Kriston, L., Dirmaier, J., Buchholz, A., & Härter, M. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire --physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Education and Counseling, 88, 284---290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.005
  • Scholl, I., Kriston, L., Dirmaier, J., & Härter, M. (2015). Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale an attempt to establish convergent validity. Health Expectations, 18, 137---150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12022
  • Schuler, M., Schildmann, J., Trautmann, F., Hentschel, L., Hornemann, B., Rentsch, A., Ehninger, G., & Schmitt, J. (2017). Cancer patients’ control preferences in decision making and associations with patient-reported outcomes: A prospective study in an outpatient cancer center. Supportive Care in Cancer, 25, 2753---2760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3686-8
  • Shay, L. A., & Lafata, J. E. (2015). Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 35, 114---131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14551638
  • Simon, D., Schorr, G., Wirtz, M., Vodermaier, A., Caspari, C., Neuner, B., Spies, C., Krnoes, T., Edwards, A., Loh, A., & Härter, M. (2006). Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q). Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 319---327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.04.012
  • Singh, S., Butow, P., Charles, M., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2010). Shared decision making in oncology: Assessing oncologist behaviour in consultations in which adjuvant therapy is considered after primary surgical treatment. Health Expectations, 13, 244---257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00587.x
  • Tamirisa, N. P., Goodwin, J. S., Kandalam, A., Linder, S. K., Weller, S., Turrubiate, S., Silva, C., & Riall, T. S. (2017). Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer. Health Expectations. Advance Online Publication, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12564
  • Thorne, S., Oliffe, J. L., & Stajduhar, K. I. (2016). Communicating shared decision-making: Cancer patient perspectives. Patient Education and Counseling, 90, 291---296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.018
Data source: Dialnet