Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 25;9(2):105-114.
doi: 10.15171/hpp.2019.15. eCollection 2019.

Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting

Babak Nejati  1 , Chien-Chin Lin  2   3 , Vida Imani  4 , Maria Browall  5 , Chung-Ying Lin  6 , Anders Broström  5 , Amir H Pakpour  7   5
Affiliations

Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting

Babak Nejati et al. Health Promot Perspect. .

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the psychometric properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) using comprehensive and thorough psychometric methods in an oncology setting. Methods: Cancer survivors (n=1783; 928 [52.05%] males) and physicians (n=154; 121[78.58%] males) participated in this study. Each cancer survivor completed the SDM-Q-9. Physicians completed the SDM-Q-Doc for each of their cancer patient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch model were used to test the psychometric properties of SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. Results: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrated unidimensional structure in CFA and Rasch model. In addition, the measurement invariance was supported for both SDM-Q-9 and SDM-QDoc across sex using the multigroup CFA. Rash analysis indicates no differential item functioning(DIF)across sex for all the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc items. SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were moderately correlated (r=0.41; P<0.001). Conclusion: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc are valid instruments to assess shared decision making in the oncology setting.

Keywords: Cancer; Confirmatory factor analysis; Instrumental study; Rasch.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Denlinger CS, Ligibel JA, Are M, Baker KS, Broderick G, Demark-Wahnefried W. et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(6):715–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Cancer: key facts. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer. Accessed September 17, 2018.
    1. Burg MA, Adorno G, Lopez ED, Loerzel V, Stein K, Wallace C. et al. Current unmet needs of cancer survivors: analysis of open‐ended responses to the American Cancer Society study of cancer survivors II. Cancer. 2015;121(4):623–30. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28951. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making – the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1109283. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Violette PD, Agoritsas T, Alexander P, Riikonen J, Santti H, Agarwal A. et al. Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(3):239–51. doi: 10.3322/caac.21272. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources