PS 1-24
MEASURING THE SHARED DECISION MAKING PROCESS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Bayshore Ballroom ABC, Lobby Level (Westin Bayshore Vancouver)
Poster Board # PS 1-24
Purpose: To inventory instruments measuring the process of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in medical encounters and assess the quality of their measurement properties.
Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were systematically searched by combining three groups of search terms: SDM, instrument types, and psychometric properties. Studies were eligible if they investigated instruments that assess the SDM-process. Two researchers independently evaluated all retrieved studies for eligibility. For each included study, we appraised the 1) quality of the methods applied in a study, using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), and 2) quality of the measurement properties of the instrument evaluated in a study. Ten measurement properties were assessed: Internal Consistency, Rreliability, Measurement error, Content validity, Structural validity, Hypothesis testing, Cross-cultural validity, Criterion validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability.
Results: Based on preliminary results, 46 out of 4314 unique studies were eligible for inclusion, describing the development or evaluation of 38 SDM-process instruments: 20 questionnaires, 16 coding-schemes and 2 instruments combining a questionnaire and a coding-scheme. Translated or revised versions were counted as unique instruments. To date we have assessed the quality of 28 studies, 11 concerning questionnaires and 17 concerning coding-schemes. Regarding the methodological quality of studies, internal consistency assessments of questionnaires was excellent in 50% of the studies, whereas in ≥50% of the studies the assessment of intra-rater reliability or content validity of coding-schemes was poor.
Regarding the quality of the measurement properties assessed in the studies, internal consistency and content validity for both questionnaires and coding schemes and the intra-rater reliability for coding-schemes had good results in the majority of studies. In contrast, the majority of coding-schemes showed poor results regarding inter-rater reliability and construct validity.
Conclusion: Due to its comprehensiveness, detailed search strategy, and standardized assessment of the quality of methods and the quality of measurement properties, this review is innovative and useful to a broad audience. It appears that studies about coding-schemes show lower methodological quality compared to questionnaire studies, especially regarding content validity and intra-rater reliability. Therefore, the quality of studies on the development and evaluation of coding-schemes needs to be improved in the future. Furthermore, due to the low amount of reliability testing and the poor methods and results, stability testing of SDM instruments needs special attention in the future.
Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were systematically searched by combining three groups of search terms: SDM, instrument types, and psychometric properties. Studies were eligible if they investigated instruments that assess the SDM-process. Two researchers independently evaluated all retrieved studies for eligibility. For each included study, we appraised the 1) quality of the methods applied in a study, using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), and 2) quality of the measurement properties of the instrument evaluated in a study. Ten measurement properties were assessed: Internal Consistency, Rreliability, Measurement error, Content validity, Structural validity, Hypothesis testing, Cross-cultural validity, Criterion validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability.
Results: Based on preliminary results, 46 out of 4314 unique studies were eligible for inclusion, describing the development or evaluation of 38 SDM-process instruments: 20 questionnaires, 16 coding-schemes and 2 instruments combining a questionnaire and a coding-scheme. Translated or revised versions were counted as unique instruments. To date we have assessed the quality of 28 studies, 11 concerning questionnaires and 17 concerning coding-schemes. Regarding the methodological quality of studies, internal consistency assessments of questionnaires was excellent in 50% of the studies, whereas in ≥50% of the studies the assessment of intra-rater reliability or content validity of coding-schemes was poor.
Regarding the quality of the measurement properties assessed in the studies, internal consistency and content validity for both questionnaires and coding schemes and the intra-rater reliability for coding-schemes had good results in the majority of studies. In contrast, the majority of coding-schemes showed poor results regarding inter-rater reliability and construct validity.
Conclusion: Due to its comprehensiveness, detailed search strategy, and standardized assessment of the quality of methods and the quality of measurement properties, this review is innovative and useful to a broad audience. It appears that studies about coding-schemes show lower methodological quality compared to questionnaire studies, especially regarding content validity and intra-rater reliability. Therefore, the quality of studies on the development and evaluation of coding-schemes needs to be improved in the future. Furthermore, due to the low amount of reliability testing and the poor methods and results, stability testing of SDM instruments needs special attention in the future.