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.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.