Stephen Kearing

Validation of a Preparation for Decision Making scale

OBJECTIVE The Preparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) scale was developed to evaluate decision processes relating to the preparation of patients for decision making and dialoguing with their practitioners. The objective of this study was to evaluate the scales psychometric properties. METHODS From July 2005 to March 2006, after viewing a decision aid prescribed during routine clinical care, patients completed a questionnaire including: demographic information, treatment intention, decisional conflict, decision aid acceptability, and the PrepDM scale. RESULTS Four hundred orthopaedic patients completed the questionnaire. The PrepDM scale showed significant correlation with the informed (r=-0.21, p<0.01) and support (r=-0.13, p=0.01) subscales (DCS); and discriminated significantly between patients who did and did not find the decision aid helpful (p<0.0001). Alpha coefficients for internal consistency ranged from 0.92 to 0.96. The scale is strongly unidimensional (principal components analysis) and Item Response Theory analyses demonstrated that all ten scale items function very well. CONCLUSION The psychometric properties of the PrepDM scale are very good. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS The scale could allow more comprehensive evaluation of interventions designed to prepare patients for shared-decision making encounters regarding complex health care decisions.

Decision quality instrument for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a psychometric evaluation

BackgroundA high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis.MethodsThe performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined.ResultsIn study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not.ConclusionsThe HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals.

Psychometric Evaluation of a Decision Quality Instrument for Treatment of Lumbar Herniated Disc

Study Design. Retrospective and prospective patient surveys and a physician survey using a sample from American Medical Association master file. Objective. To evaluate the performance of a new instrument designed to measure the quality of decisions about treatment of herniated disc. Summary of Background Data. There is growing consensus on the importance of engaging and informing patients to improve the quality of significant medical decisions, yet there are no instruments currently available to measure decision quality. Methods. The herniated disc–decision quality instrument (HD-DQI) was developed with input from clinical experts, survey research experts, and patients. The HD-DQI produces 2 scores each scaled to 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating better quality: (1) a total knowledge score and (2) a concordance score (indicating the percentage of patients who received treatments that matched their goals). We examined hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, validity, and reliability of the instrument, using data from 3 samples. Results. The HD-DQI survey was feasible to implement and acceptable to patients, with good response rates and low missing data. The knowledge score discriminated between patients who had seen a decision aid or no decision aid (55% vs. 38%, P < 0.001) and between providers and patients (73% vs. 46%, P < 0.001). The knowledge score also had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.85). Most patients (78%) received treatments that matched their goals. Patients who received treatments that matched their goals were less likely to regret the decision than those who did not (13% vs. 39%, P = 0.004). Conclusion. The HD-DQI met several criteria for high-quality patient-reported survey instruments. It can be used to determine the quality of decisions for treatment of herniated disc. More work is needed to examine acceptability for use as part of routine patient care.

Can Decision Support Help Patients With Spinal Stenosis Make a Treatment Choice?: A Prospective Study Assessing the Impact of a Patient Decision Aid and Health Coaching.

Study Design. A prospective, randomized study on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received a decision support intervention to facilitate their treatment choice. Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telephone health coaching (HC) in addition to a video decision aid (DA) compared with a DA alone for patients with spinal stenosis. Summary of Background Data. Treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis include surgical and nonsurgical approaches. Patient DAs and HC have been shown to help patients make an informed treatment choice consistent with personal preferences. Methods. Eligible patients with spinal stenosis were identified by an orthopedic surgeon or a nonsurgical spine specialist. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to either a video DA or a video DA along with HC (DA + HC). Patients completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires at 2 weeks, and 6 months after the decision support intervention(s). Results. Ninety-eight patients were randomized to the DA + HC group and 101 to the DA-only group; 168 of 199 (84%) patients completed responses at all time points. Both groups showed improved understanding of spinal stenosis treatments and progress in decision making after watching the DA (P < 0.001). At 2 weeks, more patients in the coaching group had made a treatment decision (DA + HC 74% vs. DA only 52%, P < 0.01). At 6-month follow-up, the uptake of surgery was similar for both groups (DA + HC 21% had surgery vs. DA only 17%); satisfaction with the treatments received was similar for both groups (DA + HC, 84% satisfied vs. DA only, 85%). Conclusion. These results suggest that watching the video DA improved patient knowledge and reduced decisional uncertainty about their spinal stenosis treatment choice. The addition of telephone coaching helped some patients choose a treatment more quickly; 6-month decisional outcomes were similar for both groups. Level of Evidence: 3

Factors Associated with the Quality of Patients' Surgical Decisions for Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND Shared decision making requires informing patients and ensuring that treatment decisions reflect their goals. It is not clear to what extent this happens for patients considering total joint replacement (TJR) for hip or knee osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey of osteoarthritis patients at 4 sites, who made a decision about TJR. The survey measured knowledge and goals, the decision making process, decision confidence, and decision regret. Decision quality was defined as the percentage of patients who had high knowledge scores and received treatments that matched their goals. Multivariable regression models examined factors associated with knowledge and decision quality. RESULTS There were 382 patients who participated (78.6% response rate). Mean knowledge score was 61% (SD 20.7%). In multivariate linear regression, higher education, having TJR, and site were associated with higher knowledge. Many patients (73%) received treatments that matched their goals. Thirty-one percent of patients met our definition for high decision quality. Higher decision making process scores, higher quality of life scores, and site were associated with higher decision quality. Patients who had high decision quality had less regret (73.1% vs 58.5%, p = 0.007) and greater confidence (9.0 [SD 1.6] vs 8.2 [SD 2.3] out of 10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A third of patients who recently made a decision about osteoarthritis treatment met both criteria for a high quality decision. Controlling for treatment, patients reporting more involvement in the decision making process, higher quality of life, and being seen at a site that uses decision aids were associated with higher decision quality.