Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40319135›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Response process validity of the 9-item shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a cognitive interview study with patients with cancer.

Hannah Sigl, Levente Kriston, Isabelle Scholl, Martin Härter, Pola Hahlweg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Translation and Psychometric Evaluation in Cancer Care of the German Version of collaboRATEHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Hannah SiglDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Levente KristonDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0748-264X
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7639-0880
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7443-9890
Pola HahlwegDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. p.hahlweg@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8768-8594

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The patient-reported, psychometrically evaluated, and frequently used 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) assesses shared decision-making processes in medical encounters. This study aimed to investigate SDM-Q-9's response process validity from the perspective of patients with cancer. We conducted qualitative cognitive interviews with N = 11 patients of a German comprehensive cancer center. Participants described their item interpretations, content anchors for highest and lowest scores, and difficulties with item rating. We performed qualitative content analysis and assessed concordance between item interpretations and the underlying theoretical construct of SDM-Q-9. Participants reported it necessary to have a choice (i.e., awareness of more than one option) to answer SDM-Q-9 and had difficulties rating one specific medical encounter only. For most items, interpretations matched the underlying theoretical construct. Discordance was found for item 2 (sharing the decision), and partial discordance for items 5 (supporting comprehension) and 6 (eliciting preferences). Content anchors for highest and lowest ratings showed substantial inter-individual variance. Results regarding SDM-Q-9's response process validity suggest validity for most items. However, reported prerequisites to be able to answer SDM-Q-9 and discordance between the underlying theoretical construct and interpretations found for three items warrant further investigation, before revision of the measure should be considered.

Indexed as

CognitionDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedNeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer careConstruct validityPatient-reported outcomesQualitative interviewsResponse process validityShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID40319135
PMCPMC12049467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.