Cargando…
Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery
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 brea...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411423/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-51 |
_version_ | 1782239819243454464 |
---|---|
author | Sepucha, Karen R Belkora, Jeffrey K Chang, Yuchiao Cosenza, Carol Levin, Carrie A Moy, Beverly Partridge, Ann Lee, Clara N |
author_facet | Sepucha, Karen R Belkora, Jeffrey K Chang, Yuchiao Cosenza, Carol Levin, Carrie A Moy, Beverly Partridge, Ann Lee, Clara N |
author_sort | Sepucha, Karen R |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3411423 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34114232012-08-04 Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery Sepucha, Karen R Belkora, Jeffrey K Chang, Yuchiao Cosenza, Carol Levin, Carrie A Moy, Beverly Partridge, Ann Lee, Clara N BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2012-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3411423/ /pubmed/22681763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-51 Text en Copyright ©2012 Sepucha et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sepucha, Karen R Belkora, Jeffrey K Chang, Yuchiao Cosenza, Carol Levin, Carrie A Moy, Beverly Partridge, Ann Lee, Clara N Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
title | Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
title_full | Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
title_fullStr | Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
title_short | Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
title_sort | measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411423/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-51 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sepuchakarenr measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT belkorajeffreyk measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT changyuchiao measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT cosenzacarol measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT levincarriea measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT moybeverly measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT partridgeann measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery AT leeclaran measuringdecisionqualitypsychometricevaluationofanewinstrumentforbreastcancersurgery |