• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

共享决策过程量表在遗传性癌症基因检测决策评估中的应用性能。

Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.

机构信息

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

J Genet Couns. 2023 Oct;32(5):957-964. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1704. Epub 2023 Apr 17.

DOI:10.1002/jgc4.1704
PMID:37069832
Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity of the existing four-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process Scale for use in evaluating genetic testing decisions. Patients from a large hereditary cancer genetics practice were invited to participate in a two-part survey after completing pre-test genetic counseling. The online survey included the SDM Process Scale and the SURE scale, a measure of decisional conflict. SDM Process scores were compared to SURE scores to test convergent validity, and respondents were sent a second survey 1 week later to assess retest reliability. The response rate was 65% (n = 259/398) and missing data was low (<1%). SDM scores ranged from zero to four with a mean of 2.3 (SD = 1.1). Retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation of 0.84, 95% confidence interval (0.79, 0.88). No relationship was found between SDM Process scores and decisional conflict (p = 0.46), likely because 85% of participants reported no decisional conflict. The four-item SDM Process Scale demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and retest reliability, but not convergent validity with decisional conflict. These findings provide initial evidence for use of this scale to measure patient perceptions of SDM in pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

摘要

本研究旨在评估现有的四项共享决策(SDM)过程量表用于评估遗传检测决策的可行性、可接受性、可靠性和有效性。在完成预测试遗传咨询后,邀请来自大型遗传性癌症遗传学实践的患者参加两部分调查。在线调查包括 SDM 过程量表和 SURE 量表,这是衡量决策冲突的一种措施。SDM 过程得分与 SURE 得分进行比较以测试收敛有效性,并且在一周后向受访者发送第二份调查以评估重测信度。响应率为 65%(n=259/398),且数据缺失率低(<1%)。SDM 得分范围从 0 到 4,平均值为 2.3(SD=1.1)。重测信度良好,组内相关系数为 0.84,95%置信区间(0.79,0.88)。SDM 过程得分与决策冲突之间没有关系(p=0.46),这可能是因为 85%的参与者报告没有决策冲突。四项 SDM 过程量表表现出可行性、可接受性和重测信度,但与决策冲突的收敛有效性无关。这些发现为使用该量表在遗传性癌症遗传检测的预测试咨询中衡量患者对 SDM 的感知提供了初步证据。

相似文献

1
Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.共享决策过程量表在遗传性癌症基因检测决策评估中的应用性能。
J Genet Couns. 2023 Oct;32(5):957-964. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1704. Epub 2023 Apr 17.
2
Measuring shared decision-making in younger and older adults with depression.测量年轻和老年抑郁症患者的共同决策。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2022 Oct 12;34(4). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzac076.
3
Pediatric Caregiver Version of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Validity and Reliability for ADHD Treatment Decisions.儿科照顾者共享决策过程量表版本:用于 ADHD 治疗决策的有效性和可靠性。
Acad Pediatr. 2022 Nov-Dec;22(8):1503-1509. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2022.07.014. Epub 2022 Jul 27.
4
Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies.老年认知功能正常与认知功能缺陷患者择期手术的共享决策制定。
Med Decis Making. 2023 Aug;43(6):656-666. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231182436. Epub 2023 Jul 10.
5
Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions.癌症筛查与用药决策中共同决策过程量表的评估
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Mar;108:107617. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.107617. Epub 2022 Dec 23.
6
Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure.共享决策过程量表的制定与评估:一种简短的患者报告测量工具
Med Decis Making. 2021 Feb;41(2):108-119. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20977878. Epub 2020 Dec 15.
7
Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment.使用标准化视频检验共享决策过程量表的有效性:一项随机在线实验的结果。
Med Decis Making. 2022 Jan;42(1):105-113. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211029267. Epub 2021 Aug 3.
8
Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Literature.手术中的共享决策制定:现有文献的荟萃分析。
Patient. 2020 Dec;13(6):667-681. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00443-6.
9
Shared decision making and decisional conflict in the Management of Vestibular Schwannoma: a prospective cohort study.前庭神经鞘瘤管理中的共同决策和决策冲突:一项前瞻性队列研究。
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Sep 3;47(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s40463-018-0297-4.
10
The influence of health literacy, anxiety and education on shared decision making and decisional conflict in older adults, and the mediating role of patient participation: A video observational study.健康素养、焦虑和教育对老年人共同决策和决策冲突的影响,以及患者参与的中介作用:一项视频观察研究。
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Jul;124:108274. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108274. Epub 2024 Mar 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Call to action for genetic counseling research in hereditary cancer: Considerations from the evidence-based guidelines development process.遗传性癌症遗传咨询研究的行动呼吁:基于循证指南制定过程的思考
J Genet Couns. 2025 Jun;34(3):e70026. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.70026.
2
A "rotating menu" of medical uncertainty for families affected by telomere biology disorders: A qualitative interview study.端粒生物学障碍对家庭影响的医学不确定性“旋转菜单”:一项定性访谈研究
SSM Qual Res Health. 2024 Dec;6. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100486. Epub 2024 Oct 5.