IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i1p105-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • K. D. Valentine

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Brittney Mancini

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Ha Vo

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Suzanne Brodney

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Carol Cosenza

    (Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Michael J. Barry

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Karen R. Sepucha

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

Abstract

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations. Method An online sample was randomized to a clinical decision—colon cancer screening or high cholesterol—and a viewing order—good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted. Results In the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos ( P s 0.58; P s

Suggested Citation

  • K. D. Valentine & Brittney Mancini & Ha Vo & Suzanne Brodney & Carol Cosenza & Michael J. Barry & Karen R. Sepucha, 2022. "Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 105-113, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:105-113
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211029267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211029267
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211029267?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:42:y:2022:i:1:p:105-113. 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.