Characteristics of shared decision making in Romania from the patient perspective: A cross-sectional multicentric study.
Romania
SDM-Q-9
health care
patients' perspective
psychological
shared decision making
Journal
Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
ISSN: 1365-2753
Titre abrégé: J Eval Clin Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9609066
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
17
03
2019
revised:
29
07
2019
accepted:
30
07
2019
pubmed:
14
8
2019
medline:
29
7
2020
entrez:
14
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Shared decision making (SDM) is very important from patients' perspective. This process has not yet been evaluated in Romania. The study aims to evaluate SDM from the patients' perspective and to evaluate patients' characteristics that associate with SDM. A cross-sectional multicentric study comprising eight recruitment centres was performed. Inpatients and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units treating autoimmune diseases or atrial fibrillation were included. Another sample consisted of members of the Autoimmune Disease Patient Society, who completed an online anonymous questionnaire. All participants completed the Romanian translated version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), as these samples were used for the validation of this questionnaire, too. Patients had to refer to the visit in which the decision concerning the antithrombotic treatment was taken (atrial fibrillation patients), or the immunosuppressive treatment was last time changed (autoimmune disease patients). Ordinal regression having the total SDM score as dependent variable was used. A total of 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The median score for SDM was 34 of 45, but it differed between hospital completion -39/45 and online completion (anonymous) -20/45 (P < .001). Patients with higher education were influenced most by the setting, giving the best marks in hospital and low marks online, while those with lower education gave lower marks in both settings. In ordinal regression with SDM score as dependent variable, hospital completion of the questionnaire (OR = 9.5, 95% confidence interval, 5.69-16), collagen disease diagnosis (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), and immunosuppressive treatment (OR = 2.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.26) were independent predictors. In our study, full anonymity was associated with significantly lower scores for the SDM process. The patients with higher education were most influenced by this condition, while those with the lowest education were the most critical.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Shared decision making (SDM) is very important from patients' perspective. This process has not yet been evaluated in Romania. The study aims to evaluate SDM from the patients' perspective and to evaluate patients' characteristics that associate with SDM.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional multicentric study comprising eight recruitment centres was performed. Inpatients and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units treating autoimmune diseases or atrial fibrillation were included. Another sample consisted of members of the Autoimmune Disease Patient Society, who completed an online anonymous questionnaire. All participants completed the Romanian translated version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), as these samples were used for the validation of this questionnaire, too. Patients had to refer to the visit in which the decision concerning the antithrombotic treatment was taken (atrial fibrillation patients), or the immunosuppressive treatment was last time changed (autoimmune disease patients). Ordinal regression having the total SDM score as dependent variable was used.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The median score for SDM was 34 of 45, but it differed between hospital completion -39/45 and online completion (anonymous) -20/45 (P < .001). Patients with higher education were influenced most by the setting, giving the best marks in hospital and low marks online, while those with lower education gave lower marks in both settings. In ordinal regression with SDM score as dependent variable, hospital completion of the questionnaire (OR = 9.5, 95% confidence interval, 5.69-16), collagen disease diagnosis (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), and immunosuppressive treatment (OR = 2.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.26) were independent predictors.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, full anonymity was associated with significantly lower scores for the SDM process. The patients with higher education were most influenced by this condition, while those with the lowest education were the most critical.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1152-1159Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341(oct14 2):c5146.
Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):9-18.
Hamann J, Bieber C, Elwyn G, et al. How do patients from eastern and western Germany compare with regard to their preferences for shared decision making? Eur J Public Health. 2011;22:469-473.
Baicus C, Delcea C, Dima A, Oprisan E, Jurcut C, Dan GA. Influence of decision aids on oral anticoagulant prescribing among physicians: a randomised trial. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47(9):649-658.
Scalia P, Elwyn G, Barr P, et al. Exploring the use of Option Grid™ patient decision aids in a sample of clinics in Poland. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018;134:1-8P.
Simon D, Schorr G, Wirtz M, et al. Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q). Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(3):319-327.
Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Härter M. Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity. Health Expect. 2015;18(1):137-150.
Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):94-99.
Alvarez K, Wang Y, Alegria M, et al. Psychometrics of shared decision making and communication as patient centered measures for two language groups. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(9):1074-1086.
De Las Cuevas C, Perestelo-Perez L, Rivero-Santana A, Cebolla-Marti A, Scholl I, Harter M. Validation of the Spanish version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):2143-2153.
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse AH, Kroonenberg PM, et al. 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. 2015;10(7):e0132158. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132158
Zisman-Ilani Y, Roe D, Scholl I, Harter M, Karnieli-Miller O. Shared decision making during active psychiatric hospitalization: assessment and psychometric properties. Health Commun. 2016;32:1-5.
Baicus C, Balanescu P, Gurghean A, et al. Romanian version of SDM-Q-9 validation in Internal Medicine and Cardiology setting: a multicentric cross-sectional study. Rom J Intern Med. 2019;57(2):195-200. https://doi.org/10.2478/rjim-2019-0002
Desteghe L, Engelhard L, Raymaekers Z, et al. Knowledge gaps in patients with atrial fibrillation revealed by a new validated knowledge questionnaire. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223:906-914.
Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2
Blumer T, Döring N. Are we the same online? The expression of the five factor personality traits on the computer and the Internet. Cyberpsychology: J Psychosocial Res Cyberspace. 2012;6(3):5. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2012-3-5
Fischer RJ. Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. J Consum Res. 1993;20(2):303-315.
Miron L, Miron I, Marinca M. Particularities and ethical dilemmas of informed consent in pediatric oncology. Rom J of Bioethics. 2009;7(1):18-24.