Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27537002›Full record

ArticlePsychological assessment2016

Psychometrics of shared decision making and communication as patient centered measures for two language groups.

Kiara Alvarez, Ye Wang, Margarita Alegria, Andrea Ault-Brutus, Natasha Ramanayake, Yi-Hui Yeh, Julia R Jeffries, Patrick E Shrout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological assessment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kiara AlvarezDisparities Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Ye WangDisparities Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Margarita AlegriaDisparities Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Andrea Ault-BrutusHealth Equity Research Lab, Cambridge Health Alliance.
Natasha RamanayakeDisparities Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Yi-Hui YehDisparities Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Julia R JeffriesIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital.
Patrick E ShroutDepartment of Psychology, New York University.

Funding

Effects of Social Context, Culture and Minority Status on Depression and AnxietyR01MH098374 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ALEGRIA, MARGARITA, CANINO, GLORISA J · 2012 to 2016
$3.3M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH098374Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute CD-12-11-4187
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) and effective patient-provider communication are key and interrelated elements of patient-centered care that impact health and behavioral health outcomes. Measurement of SDM and communication from the patient's perspective is necessary in order to ensure that health care systems and individual providers are responsive to patient views. However, there is a void of research addressing the psychometric properties of these measures with diverse patients, including non-English speakers, and in the context of behavioral health encounters. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of 2 patient-centered outcome measures, the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q) and the Kim Alliance Scale-Communication subscale (KAS-CM), in a sample of 239 English and Spanish-speaking behavioral health patients. One dominant factor was found for each scale and this structure was used to examine whether there was measurement invariance across the 2 language groups. One SDM-Q item was inconsistent with the configural invariance comparison and was removed. The remaining SDM-Q items exhibited strong invariance, meaning that item loadings and item means were similar across the 2 groups. The KAS-CM items had limited variability, with most respondents indicating high communication levels, and the invariance analysis was done on binary versions of the items. These had metric invariance (loadings the same over groups) but several items violated the strong invariance test. In both groups, the SDM-Q had high internal consistency, whereas the KAS-CM was only adequate. These findings help interpret results for individual patients, taking into account cultural and linguistic differences in how patients perceive SDM and patient-provider communication. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

Culturally Competent CareDecision MakingLanguagePatient Outcome AssessmentProfessional-Patient RelationsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMassachusettsMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID27537002
PMCPMC5431590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.