Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical and Translational Oncology
Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology 11/2017

01-11-2017 | Research Article

Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician’s perspective in oncology practice

Authors: C. Calderon, P. J. Ferrando, A. Carmona-Bayonas, U. Lorenzo-Seva, C. Jara, C. Beato, T. García, A. Ramchandani, B. Castelo, M. M. Muñoz, S. Garcia, O. Higuera, M. Mangas-Izquierdo, P. Jimenez-Fonseca

Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology | Issue 11/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire–Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in a sample of medical oncologists who provide adjuvant treatment to patients with non-metastatic resected cancer and the correlations between the total SDM-Q-Doc score and physician satisfaction with the information provided.

Methods

Prospective, observational and multicenter study in which 32 medical oncologists and 520 patients were recruited. The psychometric properties, dimensionality, and factor structure of the SDM-Q-Doc were assessed.

Results

Exploratory factor analyses suggested that the most likely solution was two-dimensional, with two correlated factors: one factor regarding information and another one about treatment. Confirmatory factor analysis based on cross-validation showed that the fitted two-dimensional solution provided the best fit to the data. Reliability analyses revealed good accuracy for the derived scores, both total and sub-scale, with estimates ranging from 0.81 to 0.89. The results revealed significant correlations between the total SDM-Q-Doc score and physician satisfaction with the information provided (p < 0.01); between information sub-scale scores (factor 1) and satisfaction (p < 0.01), and between treatment sub-scale scores (factor 2) and satisfaction (p < 0.01). Medical oncologists of older age and those with more years of experience showed more interest in the patient preferences (p = 0.026 and p = 0.020, respectively). Patient age negatively correlated with SDM information (p < 0.01) and physicians appear to provide more information to young patients.

Conclusion

SDM-Q-Doc showed good psychometric properties and could be a helpful tool that examines physician’s perspective of SDM and as an indicator of quality and satisfaction in patients with cancer.
Literature
1.
Cronin KA, Yu B, Krapcho M, Miglioretti DL, Fay MP, Izmirlian G, et al. Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:701–12.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Kemetli L, Rutqvist LE, Jonsson H, Nyström L, Lenner P, Törnberg S. Temporal trends in the use of adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: a population based study in Sweden 1976-2005. Acta Oncol. 2009;48:59–66.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Moloczij N, Krishnasamy M, Butow P, Hack TF, Stafford L, Jefford M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of audio-recordings and question prompt lists in cancer care consultations: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:1083–91.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Andronis L, Barton PM. Adjusting estimates of the expected value of information for implementation: theoretical framework and practical application. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36:296–307.CrossRef
5.
Beach MC, Inui T. Relationship-centered care research network. relationship-centered care. A constructive reframing. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 1):S3–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907–15.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Krishnamurti T, Argo N. A patient-centered approach to informed consent. Med. Decis. Mak. 2016;36:726–40.CrossRef
8.
Colley A, Halpern J, Paul S, Micco G, Lahiff M, Wright F, et al. Factors associated with oncology patients’ involvement in shared decision making during chemotherapy. Psychooncology. 2016;. doi:10.​1002/​pon.​4284 [Epub ahead of print].PubMed
9.
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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hambleton RK, Merenda PF, Spielberger CD. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005.
11.
Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR 9.2: a comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Appl Psychol Meas. 2013;37:497–8.CrossRef
12.
Mplus [computer program]. Version 5.1. Los Angeles: Muthen and Muthen; 1998–2007.
13.
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods Psychol Res. 2003; 23–74.
14.
Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U. A note on improving EAP trait estimation in oblique factor-analytic and item response theory models. Psicologica. 2016;37:235–47.
15.
16.
Légaré F, Moher D, Elwyn G, LeBlanc A, Gravel K. Instruments to assess the perception of physicians in the decision-making process of specific clinical encounters: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse AH, Kroonenberg PM, Scholl I, van der Weijden T, Luyten GPM, et al. Dutch translation and psychometric testing of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (sDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in primary and secondary care. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Brace C, Schmocker S, Huang H, Victor JC, McLeod RS, Kennedy ED. Physicians’ awareness and attitudes toward decision aids for patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2286–92.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zeuner R, Frosch DL, Kuzemchak MD, Politi MC. Physicians’ perceptions of shared decision-making behaviours: a qualitative study demonstrating the continued chasm between aspirations and clinical practice. Health Expect. 2015;18:2465–76.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR. Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:136–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Arora NK, Weaver KE, Clayman ML, Oakley-Girvan I, Potosky AL. Physicians’ decision-making style and psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:404–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp KG. Physician, patient, and contextual factors affecting treatment decisions in older adults with cancer and models of decision making: a literature review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39:E70–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Shepherd HL, Butow PN, Tattersall MHN. Factors which motivate cancer doctors to involve their patients in reaching treatment decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:229–35.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kenny DA, Veldhuijzen W, van der Weijden T, Leblanc A, Lockyer J, Légaré F, et al. Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor-patient relationships: a dyadic analysis of doctor–patient communication. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:763–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician’s perspective in oncology practice
Authors
C. Calderon
P. J. Ferrando
A. Carmona-Bayonas
U. Lorenzo-Seva
C. Jara
C. Beato
T. García
A. Ramchandani
B. Castelo
M. M. Muñoz
S. Garcia
O. Higuera
M. Mangas-Izquierdo
P. Jimenez-Fonseca
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 1699-048X
Electronic ISSN: 1699-3055
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1671-9

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Clinical and Translational Oncology 11/2017 Go to the issue

Research Article

A novel capillary nano-immunoassay for assessing androgen receptor splice variant 7 in plasma. Correlation with CD133 antigen expression in circulating tumor cells. A pilot study in prostate cancer patients

Brief Research Article

Validation of the prognostic value of new sub-stages within the AJCC 8th edition of non-small cell lung cancer

Research Article

Improving efficacy and efficiency through the implementation of a new organisational model in a Radiation Oncology Department

Brief Research Article

Gynecological brachytherapy for postoperative endometrial cancer: dosimetric analysis (Ir-192 vs Co-60)

Research Article

The spine instability neoplastic score (SINS) in the assessment of response to radiotherapy for bone metastases

Review article

Supportive care in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits