Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36101644›Full record

ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2022

Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): Validation of the Italian Version in a Large Psychiatric Clinical Sample.

Renato de Filippis, Matteo Aloi, Anna Maria Pilieci, Federica Boniello, Daria Quirino, Luca Steardo, Cristina Segura-Garcia, Pasquale De Fazio

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article Highlights.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renato de FilippisPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Matteo AloiPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Anna Maria PilieciPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Federica BonielloPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Daria QuirinoPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Luca SteardoPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Cristina Segura-GarciaPsychiatry Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Pasquale De FazioPsychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy.
Magna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is one of the most frequently used tools for assessing patients' involvement in medical decision-making, but so far, it not been validated in Italian. We aimed to validate the Italian version of the SDM-Q-9 in a clinical sample of patients suffering from major psychiatric disorders. Method: We involved 307 consecutive patients affected by major psychiatric disorders (including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, affective disorders and eating disorders) in a real-world outpatient clinical setting. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the latent structure of the SDM-Q-9. Cronbach's alpha and correlations between the SDM-Q-9 and the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale were calculated to measure internal consistency and convergent validity respectively. Results: The final sample was made up of 289 participants (response rate 94.1%) who completed the assessment. CFA confirmed the unidimensional structure as in the original version (χ2/df= 1.69; CFI= 0.98; TLI= 0.97; RMSEA= 0.05; SRMR= 0.08). Internal consistency of the total scale was Cronbach's α = .86. Regarding construct validity, we found several correlations between the SDM-Q-9 and OPTION scale. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the Italian version of SDM-Q-9 performs well if compared to other languages validated versions, so it is a useful patient-centred measure to assess the involvement in medical decision-making (SDM) of patients from clinical samples from the Italian-speaking population.

Indexed as

patient participationpsychometricsshared decision makingsurvey and questionnairesvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID36101644
PMCPMC9442857
OpenAlexW4295759226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.