IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i1p54-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of SURE, a Four-Item Clinical Checklist for Detecting Decisional Conflict in Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Audrey Ferron Parayre
  • Michel Labrecque
  • Michel Rousseau
  • Stéphane Turcotte
  • France Légaré

Abstract

Background: We sought to determine the psychometric properties of SURE, a 4-item checklist designed to screen for clinically significant decisional conflict in clinical practice. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of a clustered randomized trial assessing the effect of DECISION+2, a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive workshop on shared decision making, on decisions to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Patients completed SURE and also the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), as the gold standard, after consultation. We evaluated internal consistency of SURE using the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (KR-20). We compared DCS and SURE scores using the Spearman correlation coefficient. We assessed sensitivity and specificity of SURE scores (cut-off score ≤3 out of 4) by identifying patients with and without clinically significant decisional conflict (DCS score >37.5 on a scale of 0–100). Results: Of the 712 patients recruited during the trial, 654 completed both tools. SURE scores showed adequate internal consistency (KR-20 coefficient of 0.7). There was a significant correlation between DCS and SURE scores (Spearman’s Ï = −0.45, P

Suggested Citation

  • Audrey Ferron Parayre & Michel Labrecque & Michel Rousseau & Stéphane Turcotte & France Légaré, 2014. "Validation of SURE, a Four-Item Clinical Checklist for Detecting Decisional Conflict in Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 54-62, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:1:p:54-62
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13491463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13491463
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13491463?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
    ---><---

    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:34:y:2014:i:1:p:54-62. 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.

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