TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making
AU - Ubbink, Dirk T.
AU - van Asbeck, Ellyze V.
AU - Aarts, Johanna W. M.
AU - Stubenrouch, Fabienne E.
AU - Geerts, Paul A. F.
AU - Atsma, Femke
AU - Meinders, Marjan J.
N1 - Funding Information: We are thankful for the hospitals and authors of the studies for willingly sharing their data for this study. None of the authors declared a conflict of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - Objective: To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. Methods: Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects. Results: The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5–100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4–100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect. Practice implications: When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients’ subjective interpretation.
AB - Objective: To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. Methods: Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects. Results: The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5–100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4–100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect. Practice implications: When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients’ subjective interpretation.
KW - Questionnaires: CollaboRATE: SDM-Q-9: psychometrics: comparison
KW - Shared decision-making
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126879958&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.007
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 35331573
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 105
SP - 2475
EP - 2479
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
IS - 7
ER -