Jörg Dirmaier

Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments

The last years have seen a clear move towards shared decision making (SDM) and increased patient involvement in many countries. However, as the field of SDM research is still relatively young, new instruments for the measurement of (shared) decision making (process, outcome and surrounding elements) are constantly being developed. Thus, the aims of this structured review were to give an update on current developments regarding the measurement in the field of SDM, as well as to give a short overview of published and unpublished instruments. We conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed and the Web of Science database, performed hand searches of relevant journals and contacted key authors in the field. We found eight scales that have been subjected to further psychometric testing, eleven new and psychometrically tested instruments and nine developments that are still in the publishing process. The results show that there is a trend towards measuring SDM processes from a dyadic approach (assessing both the patients and the clinicians perspective). More and more scales have been developed and tested in languages other than English, which indicates the growing research efforts in various countries. While reliability of most scales is good, they differ in their extent of validation. Further psychometric testing is needed, as well as the development of a theoretical measurement framework in order to improve consistency of measured constructs across research groups.

An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis

Background Existing models of patient-centeredness reveal a lack of conceptual clarity. This results in a heterogeneous use of the term, unclear measurement dimensions, inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of patient-centered interventions, and finally in difficulties in implementing patient-centered care. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the different dimensions of patient-centeredness described in the literature and to propose an integrative model of patient-centeredness based on these results. Methods Protocol driven search in five databases, combined with a comprehensive secondary search strategy. All articles that include a definition of patient-centeredness were eligible for inclusion in the review and subject to subsequent content analysis. Two researchers independently first screened titles and abstracts, then assessed full texts for eligibility. In each article the given definition of patient-centeredness was coded independently by two researchers. We discussed codes within the research team and condensed them into an integrative model of patient-centeredness. Results 4707 records were identified through primary and secondary search, of which 706 were retained after screening of titles and abstracts. 417 articles (59%) contained a definition of patient-centeredness and were coded. 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness were identified: essential characteristics of clinician, clinician-patient relationship, clinician-patient communication, patient as unique person, biopsychosocial perspective, patient information, patient involvement in care, involvement of family and friends, patient empowerment, physical support, emotional support, integration of medical and non-medical care, teamwork and teambuilding, access to care, coordination and continuity of care. In the resulting integrative model the dimensions were mapped onto different levels of care. Conclusions The proposed integrative model of patient-centeredness allows different stakeholders to speak the same language. It provides a foundation for creating better measures and interventions. It can also be used to inform the development of clinical guidance documents and health policy directives, and through this support the shift towards patient-centered health care.

Diabetes in Primary Care: Prospective Associations between Depression, Nonadherence and Glycemic Control

Background: Findings are inconsistent regarding the degree to which depression may exert a negative impact on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We therefore aimed to examine the longitudinal relationship between depression, behavioral factors, and glycemic control. Methods: In a prospective component of a nationally representative sample, 866 patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≧18 years completed a standardized assessment including a laboratory screening, questionnaires, and diagnostic measures. Subsequent to baseline (t₀), patients were tracked over a period of 12 months (t1). Depression was assessed according to DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria. Glycemic control was determined by levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c); a level of ≧7% was judged as unsatisfactory. Regression analyses were performed to analyze the prospective relationship between depression, medication adherence, diabetes-related health behavior, and HbA1c. Results: Patients with depression at t₀ revealed increased rates of medication nonadherence (adjusted OR: 2.67; CI: 1.38–5.15) at t1. Depression (adjusted regression coefficient: β = 0.96; p = 0.001) and subthreshold depression (β = 1.01; p < 0.001) at t₀ also predicted increased problems with diabetes-related health behavior at t1. Adjusted ORs for poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≧7%) at t1 were also increased for patients with baseline depression (2.01; CI: 1.10–3.69). However, problems with medication adherence as well as problems with diabetes-related health behavior at t₀ did not predict poor glycemic control at t1. Conclusions: In a prospective representative study of patients with type 2 diabetes, baseline depression predicted problems with medication adherence, problems with health-related behaviors, and unsatisfactory glycemic control at follow-up.

Rationale and content of psychenet: the Hamburg Network for Mental Health

With the public-funded research and development project psychenet: the Hamburg Network for Mental Health (2011–2014), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research contributes to strengthening healthcare regions in Germany by establishing new trans-sectoral cooperations and implement and evaluate selected innovations. More than 60 partners from research, health care, health industry and government in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg are promoting innovative measures to improve the treatment for mental disorders. The main objective is to implement integrated healthcare networks based on evidence for effective treatment methods, deriving from high-quality research throughout five indications such as psychosis, depression, somatoform and functional syndromes, anorexia and bulimia and addiction illnesses in adolescence. Those networks are accompanied by additional measures, for example, for improving information and education, addressing occupational health or strengthening the participation of patients and their families suffering from mental illness.

Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire – physician version (SDM-Q-Doc)

OBJECTIVE To develop and psychometrically test a brief instrument for assessing the physicians perspective of the shared decision-making process in clinical encounters. METHODS We adapted the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) for patients to generate a new version for physicians (SDM-Q-Doc). The physician version was tested in clinical encounters between 29 physicians and 324 patients in German outpatient care contexts. Analyses of the extent to which the instrument was accepted, the reliability of the instrument, and the factorial structure of the scale were performed. RESULTS Physicians showed a high level of acceptance toward the SDM-Q-Doc. Item discrimination parameters were above .4 for all but one item. An analysis of internal consistency yielded a Cronbachs α of .88. Factor analysis confirmed a one-dimensional structure. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that the SDM-Q-Doc is a well-accepted and reliable instrument for assessing the physicians perspective during SDM processes in clinical encounters. To our knowledge, the SDM-Q-Doc is the first psychometrically tested scale available for assessing the physicians perspective. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS The SDM-Q-Doc can be used in studies that analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of SDM and as a quality indicator in quality assurance programs and health service assessments.

Versorgungsforschung in der psychosozialen Medizin

The following article presents aspects of the field of psychosocial medicine in Germany from the perspective of health services research. First, the tasks and topics of health services research are listed. The identification and appropriate treatment of people with mental disorders is one of the core themes of psychosocial health care; therefore, a brief overview of research results on the epidemiology of mental disorders is first presented. The primary focus of this article is then to provide a description and analysis of the structures of psychosocial care in inpatient and outpatient settings. Research findings concerning treatment processes and the result of these processes are additionally presented. The findings show that there is still a considerable lack of research results regarding the treatment of patients with mental disorders, as is also the case in other health care areas. An important empirical basis for rationally founded treatment planning in this area is thus lacking.ZusammenfassungIm folgenden Beitrag werden Aspekte der psychosozialen Medizin in Deutschland aus dem Blickwinkel der Versorgungsforschung dargestellt. Zu diesem Zweck werden zunächst Aufgaben und Themen der Versorgungsforschung benannt. Einen Aufgabenschwerpunkt psychosozialer Versorgung bilden die Identifikation und die angemessene Behandlung von Menschen mit psychischen Störungen. Entsprechend wird auch eine kurze Übersicht über die Forschungsergebnisse zur Epidemiologie psychischer Störungen gegeben. Es schließt sich dann die Beschreibung und Analyse der Strukturen psychosozialer Versorgung im stationären sowie im ambulanten Bereich an. Ergänzend werden auch Forschungsbefunde zu den Behandlungsprozessen und den jeweiligen Behandlungsergebnissen vorgestellt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass für den Bereich der Versorgung psychisch Kranker — wie für andere Gesundheitsbereiche — noch immer ein erhebliches Defizit an Forschungsergebnissen besteht. Damit fehlen hier wichtige empirische Grundlagen für eine rational begründete Versorgungsplanung.AbstractThe following article presents aspects of the field of psychosocial medicine in Germany from the perspective of health services research. First, the tasks and topics of health services research are listed. The identification and appropriate treatment of people with mental disorders is one of the core themes of psychosocial health care; therefore, a brief overview of research results on the epidemiology of mental disorders is first presented. The primary focus of this article is then to provide a description and analysis of the structures of psychosocial care in inpatient and outpatient settings. Research findings concerning treatment processes and the result of these processes are additionally presented. The findings show that there is still a considerable lack of research results regarding the treatment of patients with mental disorders, as is also the case in other health care areas. An important empirical basis for rationally founded treatment planning in this area is thus lacking.

Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale – an attempt to establish convergent validity

While there has been a clear move towards shared decision‐making (SDM) in the last few years, the measurement of SDM‐related constructs remains challenging. There has been a call for further psychometric testing of known scales, especially regarding validity aspects.

Assessment of trust in physician: a systematic review of measures.

Over the last decades, trust in physician has gained in importance. Studies have shown that trust in physician is associated with positive health behaviors in patients. However, the validity of empirical findings fundamentally depends on the quality of the measures in use. Our aim was to provide an overview of trust in physician measures and to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of identified measures. We conducted an electronic search in three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo). The secondary search strategy included reference and citation tracking of included full texts and consultation of experts in the field. Retrieved records were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts that reported on testing of psychometric properties of trust in physician measures were included in the review. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. We evaluated the quality of design, methods and reporting of studies with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed with Terwee’s 2007 quality criteria. After screening 3284 records and assessing 169 full texts for eligibility, fourteen studies on seven trust in physician measures were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and used English measures. All but one measure were generic. Sample sizes range from 25 to 1199 participants, recruited in very heterogeneous settings. Quality assessments revealed several flaws in the methodological quality of studies. COSMIN scores were mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of measures’ psychometric properties was intermediate. Several trust in physician measures have been developed over the last years, but further psychometric evaluation of these measures is strongly recommended. The methodological quality of psychometric property studies could be improved by adhering to quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist.

Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM13).

BackgroundThe Patient Activation Measure (PAM) consists of 13 items and assesses patient (or consumer) self-reported knowledge, skills, and confidence for self-management of one’s health or chronic condition. The aim of this study was to translate the original American version of the PAM13 into German and to test the psychometric properties of the German version in an elderly, multimorbid population with various chronic conditions.MethodsTranslation was performed by a standardized forward-backward translation process. The PAM13 was sent to 9.075 participants enrolled in a randomized controlled study. 4.306 participants responded to the questionnaire. Descriptive and reliability analyses were carried out. To examine scale properties, Andrich’s Rasch Rating Scale Model was fitted.ResultsThe internal consistency is good (α = 0.88) and the item-rest-correlations were found as strong to moderate. The unidimensionality of the construct was confirmed, with a variance explanation of 40.9% and good model-fits for the Rasch model. However, the lowest response options were very rarely used across all items (below 5%) and ranking order of items according to their difficulty was substantially different from that of the American version. Differential item functioning (DIF) was found in subgroups (sex, age, health status), but differences were small.ConclusionThe German version of the PAM13 showed acceptable reliability and the model-fit statistics confirmed the Rasch model. The different ranking order of the items and the unfair distribution of the response options suggest further research on validation and revision of the construct.

Which Dimensions of Patient-Centeredness Matter? - Results of a Web-Based Expert Delphi Survey

Background Present models and definitions of patient-centeredness revealed a lack of conceptual clarity. Based on a prior systematic literature review, we developed an integrative model with 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness. The aims of this study were to 1) validate, and 2) prioritize these dimensions. Method A two-round web-based Delphi study was conducted. 297 international experts were invited to participate. In round one they were asked to 1) give an individual rating on a nine-point-scale on relevance and clarity of the dimensions, 2) add missing dimensions, and 3) prioritize the dimensions. In round two, experts received feedback about the results of round one and were asked to reflect and re-rate their own results. The cut-off for the validation of a dimension was a median < 7 on one of the criteria. Results 105 experts participated in round one and 71 in round two. In round one, one new dimension was suggested and included for discussion in round two. In round two, this dimension did not reach sufficient ratings to be included in the model. Eleven dimensions reached a median ≥ 7 on both criteria (relevance and clarity). Four dimensions had a median < 7 on one or both criteria. The five dimensions rated as most important were: patient as a unique person, patient involvement in care, patient information, clinician-patient communication and patient empowerment. Discussion 11 out of the 15 dimensions have been validated through experts’ ratings. Further research on the four dimensions that received insufficient ratings is recommended. The priority order of the dimensions can help researchers and clinicians to focus on the most important dimensions of patient-centeredness. Overall, the model provides a useful framework that can be used in the development of measures, interventions, and medical education curricula, as well as the adoption of a new perspective in health policy.