比较 CollaboRATE 和 SDM-Q-9 问卷，以了解患者报告的共享决策水平。

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making.

机构信息

Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2022 Jul;105(7):2475-2479. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.007. Epub 2022 Mar 10.

DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.007

PMID:35331573

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations.

METHODS

Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects.

RESULTS

The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

摘要

目的

比较 CollaboRATE 和 SDM-Q-9 问卷在评估医患咨询中患者感知的共享决策（SDM）水平时的表现。

方法

从在荷兰的三所大学和一家大型社区医院进行的五项关于 SDM 的独立研究中采集数据，使用这两个问卷的荷兰语版本。CollaboRATE 和 SDM-Q-9 的分数以百分比表示。使用 Spearman's Rho 系数评估相关性。Bland&Altman 分析用于评估一致性程度。计算最高分数以评估可能存在的天花板效应。

结果

这五项研究共纳入 442 名患者。CollaboRATE 的中位数评分（88.9%，IQR 81.5-100%）明显高于 SDM-Q-9 的评分（80.0%，IQR 64.4-100%）（p<0.001）。相关性中等（Rho=0.53，p<0.001）。使用 CollaboRATE 时，在整个评分范围内发现系统地高出 12.5 分。CollaboRATE 和 SDM-Q-9 的最高分分别出现在 37.5%和 17%的问卷中。