Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34445969›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for medication decisions for treatment of depression symptoms.

Suzanne Brodney, K D Valentine, Karen Sepucha

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01152307 (Measuring Quality of Decisions About Treatment of Depression), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

NCT01152307 nacompletednot on this map

Measuring Quality of Decisions About Treatment of Depression

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Massachusetts, BostonRan2010 to 2010Enrolled405ConditionsDepressionArmsDVD/Booklet: Coping with Symptoms of Depression
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Suzanne BrodneyInformed Medical Decisions Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Cambridge Street, 16th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. sbrodney@mgh.harvard.edu.
K D ValentineHealth Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Cambridge Street, 16th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Karen SepuchaHealth Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Cambridge Street, 16th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA high quality treatment decision means patients are informed and receive treatment that matches their goals. This research examined the reliability and validity of the Depression Decision Quality Instrument (DQI), a survey to measure the extent to which patients are informed and received preferred treatment for depression.

methodsParticipants were aged 18 and older from 17 US cities who discussed medication or counseling with a physician in the past year, and physicians who treated patients with depression who practiced in the same cities. Participants were mailed a survey that included the Depression-DQI, a tool with 10 knowledge and 7 goal and concern items. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive a patient decision aid (DA) on treatment of depression or no DA. A matching score was created by comparing the patient's preferred treatment to their self-reported treatment received. Concordant scores were considered matched, discordant were not. We examined the reliability and known group validity of the Depression-DQI.

resultsMost patients 405/504 (80%) responded, 79% (320/405) returned the retest survey, and 60% (114/187) of physicians returned the survey. Patients' knowledge scores on the 10-item scale ranged from 14.6 to 100% with no evidence of floor or ceiling effects. Retest reliability for knowledge was moderate and for goals and concerns ranged from moderate to good. Mean knowledge scores differentiated between patients and physicians (M = 63 [SD = 15] vs. M = 81 [SD = 11], p < 0.001), and between patients who did and didn't receive a DA (M = 64 [SD = 16] vs. M = 61 [SD = 14], p = 0.041). 60.5% of participants received treatment that matched their preference. Based on the multivariate logistic regression, 'avoiding taking anti-depressants' was the only goal that was predictive of taking mediation (OR = 0.73 [0.66, 0.80], p < 0.01). Shared Decision Making Process scores were similar for those who matched their preference and those who didn't (M = 2.18 [SD = 0.97] vs. M = 2.06 [SD = 1.07]; t(320) =  - 1.06, p = 0.29). Those who matched had lower regret scores (matched M = 1.72 [SD = 0.74] vs. unmatched M = 2.32 [SD = 0.8]; t(301) =  - 6.6, p < .001).

conclusionsThe Depression DQI demonstrated modest reliability and validity. More work is needed to establish validity of the method to determine concordance.

trial registrationNCT01152307.

Indexed as

DepressionKnowledgeDecision MakingHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesDepression symptomsPatient centered careQuality measurementShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID34445969
PMCPMC8394109
OpenAlexW3195003264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.