Author
Listed:
- Amy Leader
- Constantine Daskalakis
- Clarence H. Braddock III
- Elisabeth J. S. Kunkel
- James R. Cocroft
- Sylvia Bereknyei
- Jeffrey M. Riggio
- Mark Capkin
- Ronald E. Myers
Abstract
Purpose . To measure the extent of informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening in physician-patient encounters, describe the coding process, and assess the reliability of the IDM measure. Methods . Audiorecoded encounters of 146 older adult men and their primary care physicians were obtained in a randomized controlled trial of mediated decision support related to prostate cancer screening. Each encounter was dual coded for the presence or absence of 9 elements that reflect several important dimensions of IDM, such as information sharing, patient empowerment, and engaging patients in preference clarification. An IDM-9 score (range = 0–9) was determined for each encounter by summing the number of elements that were coded as present. Estimates of coding reliability and internal consistency were calculated. Results . Male patients tended to be white (59%), married (70%), and between the ages of 50 and 59 (70%). Physicians tended to be white (90%), male (74%), and have more than 10 years of practice experience (74%). IDM-9 scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.1]). Reliability (0.90) and internal consistency (0.81) of the IDM-9 were both high. The IDM dimension observed most frequently was information sharing (74%), whereas the dimension least frequently observed was engagement in preference clarification (3.4%). Conclusions . In physician-patient encounters, the level of IDM concerning prostate cancer screening was low. The use of a dual-coding approach with audiorecorded encounters produced a measure of IDM that was reliable and internally consistent.
Suggested Citation
Amy Leader & Constantine Daskalakis & Clarence H. Braddock III & Elisabeth J. S. Kunkel & James R. Cocroft & Sylvia Bereknyei & Jeffrey M. Riggio & Mark Capkin & Ronald E. Myers, 2012.
"Measuring Informed Decision Making about Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 327-336, March.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:327-336
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11410064
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:327-336. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.