Rodenburg-Vandenbussche Sumayah, Pieterse Arwen H, Kroonenberg Pieter M, Scholl Isabelle, van der Weijden Trudy, Luyten Gre P M, Kruitwagen Roy F P M, den Ouden Henk, Carlier Ingrid V E, van Vliet Irene M, Zitman Frans G, Stiggelbout Anne M
Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 7;10(7):e0132158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132158. eCollection 2015.
The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics.
Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used.
Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded.
The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.
SDM-Q-9和SDM-Q-Doc用于衡量医患咨询过程中患者和医生对共同决策(SDM)程度的认知。到目前为止,荷兰语中还没有用于SDM的自我报告工具,且其他语言版本量表的验证也很有限。本研究的目的是将这两个量表翻译成荷兰语并评估其心理测量学特征。
参与者为患者及其主治医生(全科医生和医学专家)。182名患者使用SDM-Q-9对其咨询进行评分,43名医生使用SDM-Q-Doc对其咨询进行评分(N = 201)。确定了工具的可接受性、信度(内部一致性)和因子结构。为评估收敛效度,使用了CPSpost。
两个量表的信度都很高(SDM-Q-9的α系数为0.88;SDM-Q-Doc的α系数为0.87)。SDM-Q-9和SDM-Q-Doc的总分与CPSpost的相关性符合预期(SDM-Q-9:r = 0.29;SDM-Q-Doc:r = 0.48),且在CPSpost的不同类别之间存在显著差异,当医生单独做出决策时,平均得分最低。主成分分析显示每个量表都有一个两成分模型。验证性因子分析得出,如果排除项目1,则为一个中等但可接受的单因子模型;对于两个量表,如果同时排除项目1和9,则单因子解决方案的拟合指数最佳。
荷兰语版的SDM-Q-9和SDM-Q-Doc具有良好的可接受性和信度;它们与CPSpost的相关性符合预期,适用于荷兰的初级和专科护理。虽然排除项目1和9时模型拟合最佳,但我们认为这些项目涉及SDM的重要方面。因此,基于与理论的一致性以及与其他研究的可比性,我们建议保留量表的所有九个项目。有必要在不同临床环境和不同国家对患者和医生的SDM概念进行进一步研究,以更好地理解SDM结构及其测量方法。