Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research

Adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire for other healthcare providers in Japan

Authors: Yuko Goto, Yasuhiro Yamaguchi, Joji Onishi, Hidenori Arai, Martin Härter, Isabelle Scholl, Levente Kriston, Hisayuki Miura

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In Japan, the number of older people with various health problems and difficulties in living is increasing. In order to practice patient-centered care for them, not only medical professionals but also multidisciplinary teams including care professionals and patients need to practice shared decision making (SDM) in the context of long-term care. For this reason, a measure of SDM in consultations with healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than physicians is needed. Therefore, this study aimed at adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9, SDM-Q-Doc) for consultations with HCPs other than physicians in Japan.

Methods

A pair of SDM measures that can be used by HCPs other than physicians, “Care SDM-Questionnaire for care receivers (SDM-C-patient)” and “Care SDM-Questionnaire for care providers (SDM-C-provider)” were prepared based on the Japanese versions of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. The internal consistency and conceptual structure of these measures were tested by secondary analysis of data from 496 participants from a workshop on SDM for different HCPs. Measurement invariance were tested by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the patient (SDM-C-patient and SDM-Q-9) and provider (SDM-C-provider vs. SDM-Q-Doc) versions.

Results

Both the Japanese SDM-C-patient and SDM-C-provider demonstrated high internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.90 and McDonald’s ω coefficient was 0.90 for both measures). CFA showed one-factor structures for both measures and original measures for physicians. Moreover, multigroup CFA showed configural and metric invariance between the novel care measures and original physician’s measures.

Conclusions

Thus, the novel SDM measures for care providers in Japan as well as the original physician’s measures could be used in training setting. As these measures were tested only in a training setting, their reliability and validity as new measures for care should be tested in a clinical setting in future.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:9–18.CrossRef Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:9–18.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Leng G, Clark CI, Brian K, Partridge G. National commitment to shared decision making. BMJ. 2017;359:j4746. Leng G, Clark CI, Brian K, Partridge G. National commitment to shared decision making. BMJ. 2017;359:j4746.
3.
go back to reference Härter M, Dirmaier J, Scholl I, Donner-Banzhoff N, Dierks ML, Eich W, et al. The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;123–124:46–51.CrossRef Härter M, Dirmaier J, Scholl I, Donner-Banzhoff N, Dierks ML, Eich W, et al. The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;123–124:46–51.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.CrossRef Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.
7.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci. 2016;11:114.CrossRef Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci. 2016;11:114.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Macivera J, Ross HJ. A palliative approach for heart failure end-of-life care. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2018;33:202–7.CrossRef Macivera J, Ross HJ. A palliative approach for heart failure end-of-life care. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2018;33:202–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Weaver MS, Heinze KE, Bell CJ, Wiener L, Garee AM, Kelly KP, et al. Establishing psychosocial palliative care standards for children and adolescents with cancer and their families: an integrative review. Palliat Med. 2016;30:212–23.CrossRef Weaver MS, Heinze KE, Bell CJ, Wiener L, Garee AM, Kelly KP, et al. Establishing psychosocial palliative care standards for children and adolescents with cancer and their families: an integrative review. Palliat Med. 2016;30:212–23.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:94–9. Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:94–9.
11.
go back to reference Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88:284–90.CrossRef Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88:284–90.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hong P, Maguire E, Purcell M, Ritchie KC, Chorney J. Decision-making quality in parents considering adenotonsillectomy or tympanostomy tube insertion for their children. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143:260–6.CrossRef Hong P, Maguire E, Purcell M, Ritchie KC, Chorney J. Decision-making quality in parents considering adenotonsillectomy or tympanostomy tube insertion for their children. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143:260–6.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, et al. Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies—a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173904. Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, et al. Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies—a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173904.
16.
go back to reference Committee for making a Proposal for the Shared Decision-Making Process Regarding Initiation and Continuation of Dialysis. Proposal for the shared decision-making process regarding initiation and continuation of dialysis. J. Jpn. Soc. Dial. Therapy. 2020;53:173–217. Committee for making a Proposal for the Shared Decision-Making Process Regarding Initiation and Continuation of Dialysis. Proposal for the shared decision-making process regarding initiation and continuation of dialysis. J. Jpn. Soc. Dial. Therapy. 2020;53:173–217.
18.
go back to reference Kawasaki Y. Development of nursing shared-structured decision-making model to support cancer patients. J Jpn Acad Nurs Sci. 2015;35:277–85.CrossRef Kawasaki Y. Development of nursing shared-structured decision-making model to support cancer patients. J Jpn Acad Nurs Sci. 2015;35:277–85.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Arai H, Kriston L, Scholl I, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese 9-Item shared decision-making questionnaire and its association with decision conflict and patient factors in Japanese primary care. JMA J. 2020;3:208–15.CrossRef Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Arai H, Kriston L, Scholl I, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese 9-Item shared decision-making questionnaire and its association with decision conflict and patient factors in Japanese primary care. JMA J. 2020;3:208–15.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Scholl I, Kriston L, Harter M, et al. Association between physicians' and patients' perspectives of shared decision making in primary care settings in Japan: the impact of environmental factors. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246518. Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Scholl I, Kriston L, Harter M, et al. Association between physicians' and patients' perspectives of shared decision making in primary care settings in Japan: the impact of environmental factors. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246518.
21.
go back to reference Simon D, Schorr G, Wirtz M, Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Neuner B, et al. Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q). Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:319–27.CrossRef Simon D, Schorr G, Wirtz M, Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Neuner B, et al. Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q). Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:319–27.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango) Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango) Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.
23.
go back to reference Toyoda H. Covariance structure analysis [R] edition—structural equation modeling. tokyo: Tokyo Tosho Co., Ltd.; 2014. Toyoda H. Covariance structure analysis [R] edition—structural equation modeling. tokyo: Tokyo Tosho Co., Ltd.; 2014.
24.
go back to reference Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14:464–504.CrossRef Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14:464–504.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kriston L, Harter M, Scholl I. A latent variable framework for modeling dyadic measures in research on shared decision-making. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106:253–63.CrossRef Kriston L, Harter M, Scholl I. A latent variable framework for modeling dyadic measures in research on shared decision-making. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106:253–63.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Chan D. Advances in analytical strategies. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 85–113. Chan D. Advances in analytical strategies. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 85–113.
29.
go back to reference Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and systhesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;2:4–69.CrossRef Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and systhesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;2:4–69.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Rutkowski L, Svetina D. Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2014;74:31–57.CrossRef Rutkowski L, Svetina D. Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2014;74:31–57.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9:233–55.CrossRef Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9:233–55.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Meade AW, Johnson EC, Braddy PW. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:568–92.CrossRef Meade AW, Johnson EC, Braddy PW. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:568–92.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, Härter M, Scholl I. Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0173904. Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, Härter M, Scholl I. Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0173904.
34.
go back to reference Müller E, Strukava A, Scholl I, Härter M, Diouf NT, Légaré F, et al. Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026488. Müller E, Strukava A, Scholl I, Härter M, Diouf NT, Légaré F, et al. Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026488.
35.
go back to reference Lawani MA, Côté L, Coudert L, Morin M, Witteman HO, Caron D, et al. Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20:189.CrossRef Lawani MA, Côté L, Coudert L, Morin M, Witteman HO, Caron D, et al. Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20:189.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Diouf NT, Menear M, Robitaille H, et al. Training health professionals in shared decision making: update of an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(11):1753–8.CrossRef Diouf NT, Menear M, Robitaille H, et al. Training health professionals in shared decision making: update of an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(11):1753–8.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Johnson SB, Fair MA, Howley LD, et al. Teaching public and population health in medical education: an evaluation framework. Acad Med. 2020;95:1853–63.CrossRef Johnson SB, Fair MA, Howley LD, et al. Teaching public and population health in medical education: an evaluation framework. Acad Med. 2020;95:1853–63.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Hsu SY. Evaluating a continuing medical education program: New World Kirkpatrick Model. Int J Manag Econ Soc Sci. 2019;8:266–79. Hsu SY. Evaluating a continuing medical education program: New World Kirkpatrick Model. Int J Manag Econ Soc Sci. 2019;8:266–79.
39.
go back to reference Luo S, Yang HH. Using technologies in nursing research education: a mixed methods case study. Comput Inform Nurs. 2018;36:293–304.CrossRef Luo S, Yang HH. Using technologies in nursing research education: a mixed methods case study. Comput Inform Nurs. 2018;36:293–304.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Nightingale J, Fowler-Davis S, Grafton K, et al. The role of allied health professions and nursing research internships in developing a research culture: a mixed-methods exploration of stakeholder perspectives. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18:122. Nightingale J, Fowler-Davis S, Grafton K, et al. The role of allied health professions and nursing research internships in developing a research culture: a mixed-methods exploration of stakeholder perspectives. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18:122.
Metadata
Title
Adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire for other healthcare providers in Japan
Authors
Yuko Goto
Yasuhiro Yamaguchi
Joji Onishi
Hidenori Arai
Martin Härter
Isabelle Scholl
Levente Kriston
Hisayuki Miura
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01683-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2021 Go to the issue