Author
Listed:
- Mirjam M. Garvelink
(Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l’Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec City, QC, Canada)
- Laura Boland
(Faculty of Health Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada)
- Krystal Klein
(Cambia Health Solutions, Portland, OR, USA)
- Don Vu Nguyen
(Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l’Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec City, QC, Canada)
- Matthew Menear
(Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l’Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec City, QC, Canada)
- Hilary L. Bekker
(Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK (HLB))
- Karen B. Eden
(Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Portland, OR, USA)
- Annie LeBlanc
- Annette M. O’Connor
(Faculty of Health Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)
- Dawn Stacey
(Faculty of Health Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada)
- France Légaré
(Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l’Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec City, QC, Canada
Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada)
Abstract
Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions ( n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves ( n = 353, 87%), about treatment ( n = 225, 55%), or testing ( n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology ( n = 113, 28%) and primary care ( n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.
Suggested Citation
Mirjam M. Garvelink & Laura Boland & Krystal Klein & Don Vu Nguyen & Matthew Menear & Hilary L. Bekker & Karen B. Eden & Annie LeBlanc & Annette M. O’Connor & Dawn Stacey & France Légaré, 2019.
"Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 301-314, May.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:301-314
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19851345
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:39:y:2019:i:4:p:301-314. 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.