IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0191747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Fania R Gärtner
  • Hanna Bomhof-Roordink
  • Ian P Smith
  • Isabelle Scholl
  • Anne M Stiggelbout
  • Arwen H Pieterse

Abstract

Objective: To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. Methods: In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. Results: We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. Conclusions: Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument’s content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Fania R Gärtner & Hanna Bomhof-Roordink & Ian P Smith & Isabelle Scholl & Anne M Stiggelbout & Arwen H Pieterse, 2018. "The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-57, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191747
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191747
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191747&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0191747?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke & MacKenzie, Scott B & Podsakoff, Philip M, 2003. "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 199-218, September.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    3. Entwistle, Vikki A. & Skea, Zoë C. & O'Donnell, Máire T., 2001. "Decisions about treatment: interpretations of two measures of control by women having a hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 721-732, September.
    4. Michael Saheb Kashaf & Elizabeth McGill, 2015. "Does Shared Decision Making in Cancer Treatment Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 1037-1048, November.
    5. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.
    6. Saraswathi Vedam & Kathrin Stoll & Kelsey Martin & Nicholas Rubashkin & Sarah Partridge & Dana Thordarson & Ganga Jolicoeur & the Changing Childbirth in BC Steering Council, 2017. "The Mother’s Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Heidemarie Kremer & Gail Ironson, 2008. "Measuring the Involvement of People with HIV in Treatment Decision Making Using the Control Preferences Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 899-908, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    2. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    3. Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Loïs F. van de Water & Danique W. Bos–van den Hoek & Steven C. Kuijper & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven & Geert-Jan Creemers & Serge E. Dohmen & Helle-Brit Fiebrich & Petronella B. Ottevanger & Dirkje, 2024. "Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 89-101, January.
    5. Arwen H. Pieterse & Kim Brandes & Jessica de Graaf & Joyce E. de Boer & Nanon H. M. Labrie & Anouk Knops & Cornelia F. Allaart & Johanna E. A. Portielje & Willem Jan W. Bos & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2022. "Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 375-386, April.
    6. Liu, Qian & Shao, Zhen & Fan, Weiguo, 2018. "The impact of users’ sense of belonging on social media habit formation: Empirical evidence from social networking and microblogging websites in China," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 209-223.
    7. Philippe Cohard, 2020. "Information Systems Values: A Study of the Intranet in Three French Higher Education Institutions," Post-Print hal-02987225, HAL.
    8. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    9. Joan-Lluis Capelleras & Ignacio Contín-Pilart & Martin Larraza-Kintana, 2011. "Publicly Funded Prestart Support for New Firms: Who Demands it and How it Affects Their Employment Growth," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(5), pages 821-847, October.
    10. Kusa, Rafał & Suder, Marcin & Duda, Joanna, 2023. "Impact of greening on performance in the hospitality industry: Moderating effect of flexibility and inter-organizational cooperation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Deng, Qian (Claire) & Messinger, Paul R., 2022. "Dimensions of brand-extension fit," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 764-787.
    12. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    13. Schneider, Christian O. & Bremen, Philipp & Schönsleben, Paul & Alard, Robert, 2013. "Transaction cost economics in global sourcing: Assessing regional differences and implications for performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 243-254.
    14. Sony, Michael & Naik, Subhash, 2020. "Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    15. Nikola Milicevic & Ines Djokic & Nenad Djokic & Aleksandar Grubor, 2022. "Social Marketing in Promoting Sustainable Healthy Lifestyle among Student Population," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    17. Bediako, Isaac Asare & Zhao, Xicang & Antwi, Henry Asante & Mensah, Claudia Nyarko, 2018. "Urban water supply systems improvement through water technology adoption," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 70-77.
    18. Ashwin W. Joshi, 2017. "OEM implementation of supplier-developed component innovations: the role of supplier actions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 548-568, July.
    19. DeMarree, Kenneth G. & Briñol, Pablo & Petty, Richard E., 2014. "The effects of power on prosocial outcomes: A self-validation analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 20-30.
    20. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.