Department of Family Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Eval Health Prof. 2010 Sep;33(3):321-42. doi: 10.1177/0163278710376662.
Satisfaction with treatment is regarded as an important outcome measure, but its suitability has not been thoroughly investigated in the context of shared decision making (SDM). The authors evaluated whether both patients' and physicians' satisfaction ratings differ between an intervention group and a control group within a structured tool for cardiovascular prevention (ARRIBA-Herz). In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, 44 family physicians in the intervention group consecutively recruited 550 patients whereas 47 physicians in the control group included 582 patients. Main findings were high satisfaction ratings independent of group allocation in patients and physicians. Significant differences had only negligible effect sizes. Compared to global satisfaction ratings, the effects of the shared decision-making process are better measured by a more concrete approach representing different steps of this process. Further research should refine behaviorally oriented questionnaires that measure SDM and a version for physicians should also be created.
治疗满意度被视为一项重要的结果衡量指标，但在共享决策制定（SDM）的背景下，其适用性尚未得到彻底研究。作者评估了在心血管预防结构化工具（ARRIBA-Herz）中，干预组和对照组之间患者和医生的满意度评分是否存在差异。在一项实用的、聚类随机、对照试验中，干预组的 44 名家庭医生连续招募了 550 名患者，而对照组的 47 名医生则纳入了 582 名患者。主要发现是患者和医生的满意度评分都很高，与分组无关。显著差异的效果大小可以忽略不计。与总体满意度评分相比，通过更具体的方法来衡量共享决策过程的效果更好，这种方法代表了这一过程的不同步骤。进一步的研究应该改进以行为为导向的问卷来衡量 SDM，并且还应该创建一个针对医生的版本。
