Decisional Conflict Scale Scores Research Articles

Validation of SURE, a Four-Item Clinical Checklist for Detecting Decisional Conflict in Patients

We sought to determine the psychometric properties of SURE, a 4-item checklist designed to screen for clinically significant decisional conflict in clinical practice. This study was a secondary analysis of a clustered randomized trial assessing the effect of DECISION+2, a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive workshop on shared decision making, on decisions to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Patients completed SURE and also the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), as the gold standard, after consultation. We evaluated internal consistency of SURE using the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (KR-20). We compared DCS and SURE scores using the Spearman correlation coefficient. We assessed sensitivity and specificity of SURE scores (cut-off score ≤3 out of 4) by identifying patients with and without clinically significant decisional conflict (DCS score >37.5 on a scale of 0-100). Of the 712 patients recruited during the trial, 654 completed both tools. SURE scores showed adequate internal consistency (KR-20 coefficient of 0.7). There was a significant correlation between DCS and SURE scores (Spearman's ρ = -0.45, P < 0.0001). The prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict as estimated by the DCS was 5.2% (95% CI 3.7-7.3). Sensitivity and specificity of SURE ≤3 were 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-99.0) and 89.8% (95% CI 87.1-92.0), respectively. SURE shows adequate psychometric properties in a primary care population with a low prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict. SURE has the potential to be a useful screening tool for practitioners, responding to the growing need for detecting clinically significant decisional conflict in patients.

Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale to investigate the value of pharmacists’ information: a before and after study

BackgroundThe information provided in patient-centered care and shared decision-making influences patients’ concerns and adherence to treatment. In the decision-making process, patients experience decisional conflict. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is a 16-item, self-administered questionnaire consisting of 5 subscales developed to assess patients’ decisional conflict. This study aimed to develop the Japanese version of the DCS and to clarify the influence of the information provided by pharmacists’ on decisional conflict among patients with cancer.MethodsWe developed the Japanese version of the DCS by using the forward-backward translation method. One hundred patients who were recommended a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited. The psychometric properties of the Japanese DCS, including internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and construct validity, were examined. We assessed the decisional conflict of patients before and after the pharmacists’ provision of information.ResultsNinety-four patients, predominately female, with an average age of 58.1 years were sampled. The scores on the 5 subscales of the DCS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84–0.96). Multi-trait scaling analysis and cluster analysis showed strong validity. The mean total DCS score decreased significantly from 40.2 to 31.7 after patients received information from the pharmacists (p < 0.001, paired t-test). Scores on all 5 subscales, namely, uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision, also significantly improved (p < 0.001 for all categories, paired t-test).ConclusionsThe psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the DCS are considered appropriate for it to be administered to patients with cancer. Pharmacists’ provision of information was able to decrease decisional conflict among patients with cancer who were recommended a new chemotherapy regimen.

患者の治療選択における意思決定の葛藤を指標とした薬剤師の服薬カウンセリング効果の定量的評価法

The purpose of this before-after study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and to analyze the impact of pharmacist counseling on decisional conflict for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Internal consistency reliability was calculated. Multi-trait scaling and cluster analyses were performed to measure construct validity. In addition, decisional conflict in the patients infected with HIV was assessed before and after they received information from pharmacists. Data collected from 69 patients who were recommended a new anti-retroviral therapy were analyzed. A high degree of internal consistency was observed for the five subscales of the DCS (Cronbach's alpha = 0.78 - 0.90). Multi-trait scaling and cluster analyses indicated good construct validity. After the pharmacist counseling, the mean total DCS score decreased significantly (ie, from 46.3 to 26.5, P < 0.0001, paired t-test). Scores on all subscales of the DCS showed statistically significant improvement (Ps < 0.0001, paired t-test). This paper concludes that the Japanese version of the DCS is psychometrically sound for patients infected with HIV. Before initiating anti-retroviral therapy, these patients have high decisional conflict, which can be improved by pharmacist counseling.

Interpreting Patient Decisional Conflict Scores

Patient decision aids facilitate treatment decisions. They are often evaluated in terms of their effect on decisional conflict, as measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). It is unclear to what extent lower DCS scores are accompanied by observable patient behavior or emotions. To help interpret DCS scores. In a Dutch university hospital, statements on behaviors or emotions during decision making were collected from asymptomatic aneurysm patients and healthy employees. Subsequently, they rated the intensity of decisional conflict that each statement expresses on a 1 to 10 scale. Selected statements were prospectively tested in aneurysm patients and cancer patients facing treatment dilemmas. Associations between patients' DCS scores and reported behavior and emotions were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Participants provided 363 statements on behaviors and emotions during decision making, of which 28 were mentioned more than 4 times. Nine forms of behavior and emotions were selected as they were graded with the least variable median ratings of intensity of decisional conflict. Among 100 patients facing a treatment dilemma, each point increase in DCS lowered their odds for "immediately making the decision" (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98), whereas the odds of "fretting regularly" (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) and "feeling nervous when thinking of the decision" (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) where higher. A decrease in decisional conflict scores leads to less decision postponing behavior, fretting, and nervousness. Research should focus on which DCS scores are needed to make deliberate decisions and which scores hinder patients in decision making.

Analysis of Decisional Conflict Among Parents Who Consent to Hypospadias Repair: Single Institution Prospective Study of 100 Couples

Although obtaining informed consent for distal hypospadias repair is common practice, little is known about the uncertainty or conflict between consenting parents faced with this decision. We systematically evaluated decisional conflict between parents who elected to have their child undergo hypospadias surgery. A total of 100 couples who were counseled about treatment options agreed to participate. Using a validated questionnaire, the Decisional Conflict Scale, we prospectively collected data on decisional conflict demographics, preference for circumcision, education level and prior knowledge about hypospadias. All parents elected surgical repair. Evidence of decisional conflict was encountered in 28% of participants (score less than 25 in 72%, 25 to 37.5 in 23.5%, greater than 37.5 in 4.5%). No statistically significant differences among parents were noted for total score (mean ± SD 16.1 ± 12 in mothers and 18.3 ± 12.6 in fathers) or subscales, except the informed subscale (mean ± SD 16.7 ± 14.3 in mothers and 21.1 ± 16.6 in fathers). Parental self-report of prior knowledge about hypospadias and preference for neonatal circumcision correlated with lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores (p = 0.02 and p <0.01, respectively). No statistical association was found between score and parental education level (p = 0.7) or expertise of the counselor (staff vs pediatric urology fellow, p = 0.4). These data describe the level of decisional conflict in couples agreeing to proceed with hypospadias repair, with no evidence of significant discrepancy between them. The novel description of factors related to decreased decisional conflict might help focus efforts aimed at minimizing difficulties encountered during the decision making process.

Use of a Decision Aid to Help Caregivers Discuss Terminal Disease Status With a Family Member With Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

We tested whether a decision aid explaining how to discuss the approach of death with a family member with cancer would help family caregivers decide to discuss a terminal prognosis. We randomly assigned caregivers of terminally ill patients with cancer to a group that received a video and a companion workbook that showed either how they can discuss the prognosis with their patient (experimental arm) or how cancer pain can be controlled (control arm). At baseline and 1 month, we evaluated the decision to discuss terminal prognosis as the primary outcome. At 0, 1, 3, and 6 months, we assessed the caregivers' decisional conflict and satisfaction as secondary outcomes using a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). We found no difference in changes in the decision to discuss terminal prognosis between the two groups. Conflict (P = .003), uncertainty (P = .019), and value clarity (P = .007) subscale scores and total DCS score (P = .008) improved from baseline to 1 month significantly more in the experimental arm than in the control arm. Over 6 months, the significant between-group differences continued for the conflict (P = .031), uncertainty (P = .014), and value clarity (P = .039) subscale scores and total DCS score (P = .040). Decision aids can help caregivers, with the aid of trained professionals, to communicate with patients about their terminal illness.

Improving Decision-Making for Feeding Options in Advanced Dementia: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

To test whether a decision aid improves quality of decision-making about feeding options in advanced dementia. Cluster randomized controlled trial. Twenty-four nursing homes in North Carolina. Residents with advanced dementia and feeding problems and their surrogates. Intervention surrogates received an audio or print decision aid on feeding options in advanced dementia. Controls received usual care. Primary outcome was the Decisional Conflict Scale (range: 1-5) measured at 3 months; other main outcomes were surrogate knowledge, frequency of communication with providers, and feeding treatment use. Two hundred fifty-six residents and surrogate decision-makers were recruited. Residents' average age was 85; 67% were Caucasian, and 79% were women. Surrogates' average age was 59; 67% were Caucasian, and 70% were residents' children. The intervention improved knowledge scores (16.8 vs 15.1, P < .001). After 3 months, intervention surrogates had lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores than controls (1.65 vs 1.90, P < .001) and more often discussed feeding options with a healthcare provider (46% vs 33%, P = .04). Residents in the intervention group were more likely to receive a dysphagia diet (89% vs 76%, P = .04) and showed a trend toward greater staff eating assistance (20% vs 10%, P = .08). Tube feeding was rare in both groups even after 9 months (1 intervention vs 3 control, P = .34). A decision aid about feeding options in advanced dementia reduced decisional conflict for surrogates and increased their knowledge and communication about feeding options with providers.

Decisional conflict and the disposition of frozen embryos: implications for informed consent

Fertility patients often struggle with decisions about disposition of embryos remaining after fertility treatment. We aimed to identify predictors and correlates of decisional conflict among patients facing these decisions. We analyzed results from a survey of 2210 patients from nine geographically diverse US fertility clinics. The main outcome measure was decisional conflict about embryo disposition, as measured by the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Of 1244 respondents who returned the survey, 1005 with cryopreserved embryos and DCS scores were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 39% reported high decisional conflict (DCS ≥ 37.5). Thoughts about future childbearing were associated with high decisional conflict: respondents who were either uncertain about whether to have a baby in the future or sure they did not want to have a baby were at higher odds of high decisional conflict than participants who desired a baby [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.93, P < 0.001 and aOR = 1.69, P = 0.04, respectively]. Also associated with high decisional conflict were being likely to have embryos thawed and discarded (aOR = 2.08, P < 0.001), donated for research (aOR = 1.66, P = 0.01) or frozen 'forever' (aOR = 1.90, P = 0.01); being likely to choose compassionate transfer if it were available (aOR = 1.65, P = 0.03); attributing high, but not full, moral status to human embryos; not having enough information; and not being satisfied with the informed consent process. Decisional conflict about frozen embryo disposition differs according to reproductive preferences that may vary according to stage of treatment. Informed consent for embryo disposition should be revisited periodically, with serious discussions about disposition after childbearing is complete.

Evaluation of the effect of a patient decision aid about vasectomy on the decision-making process: a randomized trial

Background Between 7% and 10% of men who choose vasectomy as a contraceptive method regret their decision. This study evaluates the effect of a patient decision aid (PtDA) designed to help men decide whether or not to have a vasectomy. Study Design Men considering vasectomy were randomized to an experimental group that received a full PtDA containing information and values guidance ( n=32) or to a control group that received an abridged PtDA containing information only ( n=31). Results Mean Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) scores before and after the intervention were 2.6±0.4 and 1.9±0.4 in the experimental group and 2.5±0.4 and 1.8±0.4 in the control group (p=.94), respectively. Mean knowledge of vasectomy scores before and after the intervention were 50%±16% and 72%±18% in the experimental group and 55%±18% and 71%±15% in the control group (p=.40), respectively. At baseline, all participants were undecided as to whether to have a vasectomy. After the intervention, 60% of experimental group participants and 53% of control group participants had made a definite decision (p=.58). Conclusion In men considering vasectomy, both versions of the PtDAs improved the quality of decision-making process to a similar extent. Information alone may be sufficient to support good decision making in these patients.

Decisional Conflict among Patients Who Accept or Decline Participation in Phase I Oncology Studies

WE COMPARED DECISIONAL CONFLICT among adults with advanced cancer who had accepted or declined participation in phase I cancer clinical trials. Respondents completed a 121-item questionnaire that included the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), which was designed to measure uncertainty in making health decisions. We used standardized effect sizes to compare the DCS scores of accepters (n = 250) and decliners (n = 65). Accepters had lower decisional conflict than decliners overall (d = 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.17--0.68) and on all subscales. Whether greater decisional conflict among decliners represents suboptimal decision-making and is reason for bioethical concern depends on how the results are interpreted. We offer three scenarios to explain the differences and describe opportunities for future empirical work.

Pilot Trial of Telemedicine as a Decision Aid for Patients with Chronic Wounds

The study goal was to evaluate the impact of the telemedicine consult on patients with chronic wounds. Thirty patients from long-term care skilled nursing facilities, referred to the ambulatory wound care program for wound assessment and preparation of management plans, were the subject of this prospective, randomized trial. To facilitate communication with a surgical wound care specialist, telemedicine feedback was provided prior to face-to-face consultation to 15 patients. The telemedicine consult included (1) wound assessment, (2) rationale for the suggested wound management with emphasis on wound risk projections, and (3) prevention and benefits of surgical intervention. This was communicated to the patient by the field wound care nurse. The telemedicine impact was measured by assessing the duration of the subsequent face-to-face consultation and patient satisfaction with further care decisions as well as by validation of a decisional conflict scale. The average duration of the face-to-face consultation was 50 +/- 12 minutes versus 35 +/- 6 (p < 0.01) minutes for patients subjected to the telemedicine feedback preceding the direct contact with the specialist. The telemedicine consult was found to be a useful aid in increasing the satisfaction rate from care decisions ultimately made during the direct consult (acceptance rate 93% vs. 47% in those subjected to treatment without the intermediate telemedicine consult, p < 0.01). The decisional conflict as a state of uncertainty about the course of action to take was reduced in patients subjected to telemedicine decision aid. The average Decisional Conflict Scale score was 14 +/- 1.73 in patients subjected to telemedicine feedback as opposed to 35 +/- 4.26 (p < 0.001) in no-telemedicine contact. The telemedicine consult preceding face-to-face evaluation improved patient satisfaction and understanding of their care as well as increased the perception of shared decision making regarding the wound care.

Percepción de seguridad en la decisión del paciente quirúrgico: Relación con la información previa recibida

To evaluate the certainty of patients deciding whether or not to undergo a proposed operation and the relationship between the degree of certainty and the prior information received. A cross-sectional study was performed using the decisional conflict scale (DCS) to evaluate the degree of certainty of patients deciding to undergo surgery. A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain demographic data (age, sex, and level of education) and details about the information the patients had received regarding the surgical procedure. Patients were classified as certain or uncertain of their decision to undergo surgery according to the DCS score. A logistic regression model was constructed to adjust for confounding factors and to analyze the relationship between certainty and variables reflecting the information received by the patient. A total of 358 patients were included. Thirty percent of the patients stated that they had not received prior information and 31.6% showed uncertainty in their decision. Younger men with a higher level of education felt more certain of their decision. After adjusting for age, sex, and level of education, we found that uncertainty was related to the perception of not having received enough prior information (odds ratio, 43; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-7.7). The perception of certainty is clearly linked to patients' understanding of prior information received. The results show a need to improve the information given to patients--particularly to elderly patients and those with a low level of education.

Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

The study objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a decisional conflict scale (DCS) that elicits: 1) health-care consumers' uncertainty in making a health-related decision; 2) the factors contributing to the uncertainty; and 3) health-care consumers' perceived effective decision making. The DCS was developed in response to the lack of instruments available to evaluate health-care-consumer decision aids and to tailor decision-supporting interventions to particular consumer needs. The scale was evaluated with 909 individuals deciding about influenza immunization or breast cancer screening. A subsample of respondents was retested two weeks later. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. The DCS discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who had strong intentions either to accept or to decline invitations to receive influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and those whose intentions were uncertain. The scale also discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who accepted or rejected immunization and those who delayed their decisions to be immunized. There was a weak inverse correlation (r = -0.16, p < 0.05) between the DCS and knowledge test scores. The psychometric properties of the scale are acceptable. It is feasible and easy to administer. Evaluations of responsiveness to change and validation with more difficult decisions are warranted.