ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022
Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effect of a Peer Comparison and Educational Intervention on Medical Test Conversation Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Shared Decision-Making Behavior in Surgery Among Early Breast Cancer Patients and Associated Factors Using COM-B Model: A Latent Profile Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Improving the Process of Shared Decision-Making by Integrating Online Structured Information and Self-Assessment Tools.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Implementing a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid via Text Messaging in a Large Massachusetts Health Care System.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations.
methodAn online sample was randomized to a clinical decision-colon cancer screening or high cholesterol-and a viewing order-good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted.
resultsIn the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos (
conclusionSDM Process scores showed good evidence of validity in a hypothetical scenario but were lacking in ability to classify good-quality or poor-quality videos accurately. Considerable heterogeneity of scoring existed, suggesting that individual differences played a role in evaluating good- or poor-quality SDM conversations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.