Search

Background: Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening recommend that patients be informed about options and be able to select preferred method of screening; however, there are no existing measures available to assess whether this happens., Methods: Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Quality Instrument (CRC-DQI) includes knowledge items and patients' goals and concerns. Items were generated through literature review and qualitative work with patients and providers. Hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity and retest reliability of the survey were examined using data from three studies: (1) 2X2 randomized study of participants recruited online, (2) cross-sectional sample of patients recruited in community health clinics, and (3) cross-sectional sample of providers recruited from American Medical Association Master file., Results: 338 participants were recruited online, 94 participants were recruited from community health centers, and 115 physicians were recruited. The CRC-DQI was feasible and acceptable with low missing data and high response rates for both online and paper-based administrations. The knowledge score was able to discriminate between those who had seen a decision aid or not (84% vs. 64%, p < 0.001) and between providers, online patients and clinic patients (89% vs. 74% vs. 41%, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The knowledge score and most of the goals had adequate retest reliability. About half of the participants received a test that matched their goals (47% and 51% in online and clinic samples respectively). Many respondents who had never been screened had goals that indicated a preference for colonoscopy. A minority of respondents in the online (21%) and in clinic (2%) samples were both well informed and received a test that matched their goals., Conclusions: The CRC-DQI demonstrated good psychometric properties in diverse samples, and across different modes of administration. Few respondents made high quality decisions about colon cancer screening.

Study Design: Retrospective and prospective patient surveys and a physician survey using a sample from American Medical Association master file., Objective: To evaluate the performance of a new instrument designed to measure the quality of decisions about treatment of herniated disc., Summary of Background Data: There is growing consensus on the importance of engaging and informing patients to improve the quality of significant medical decisions, yet there are no instruments currently available to measure decision quality., Methods: The herniated disc-decision quality instrument (HD-DQI) was developed with input from clinical experts, survey research experts, and patients. The HD-DQI produces 2 scores each scaled to 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating better quality: (1) a total knowledge score and (2) a concordance score (indicating the percentage of patients who received treatments that matched their goals). We examined hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, validity, and reliability of the instrument, using data from 3 samples., Results: The HD-DQI survey was feasible to implement and acceptable to patients, with good response rates and low missing data. The knowledge score discriminated between patients who had seen a decision aid or no decision aid (55% vs. 38%, P < 0.001) and between providers and patients (73% vs. 46%, P < 0.001). The knowledge score also had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.85). Most patients (78%) received treatments that matched their goals. Patients who received treatments that matched their goals were less likely to regret the decision than those who did not (13% vs. 39%, P = 0.004)., Conclusion: The HD-DQI met several criteria for high-quality patient-reported survey instruments. It can be used to determine the quality of decisions for treatment of herniated disc. More work is needed to examine acceptability for use as part of routine patient care.

Background: A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis., Methods: The performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined., Results: In study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not., Conclusions: The HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals.

Background: The purpose of this paper is to examine the acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of a new decision quality instrument that assesses the extent to which patients are informed and receive treatments that match their goals. Methods: Cross-sectional mail survey of recent breast cancer survivors, providers and healthy controls and a retest survey of survivors. The decision quality instrument includes knowledge questions and a set of goals, and results in two scores: a breast cancer surgery knowledge score and a concordance score, which reflects the percentage of patients who received treatments that match their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity, content validity, predictive validity and retest reliability of the survey instrument were examined. Results: We had responses from 440 eligible patients, 88 providers and 35 healthy controls. The decision quality instrument was feasible to implement in this study, with low missing data. The knowledge score had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.70) and discriminated between providers and patients (mean difference 35%, p<0.001). The majority of providers felt that the knowledge items covered content that was essential for the decision. Five of the 6 treatment goals met targets for content validity. The five goals had moderate to strong retest reliability (0.64 to 0.87). The concordance score was 89%, indicating that a majority had treatments concordant with that predicted by their goals. Patients who had concordant treatment had similar levels of confidence and regret as those who did not. Conclusions: The decision quality instrument met the criteria of feasibility, reliability, discriminant and content validity in this sample. Additional research to examine performance of the instrument in prospective studies and more diverse populations is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]