Display options
Cite
Kasper J, Hoffmann F, Heesen C, et al. MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34849doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034849.
Kasper, J., Hoffmann, F., Heesen, C., Köpke, S., & Geiger, F. (2012). MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making. PloS one, 7(4), e34849. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034849
Kasper, Jürgen, et al. "MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making." PloS one vol. 7,4 (2012): e34849. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034849
Kasper J, Hoffmann F, Heesen C, Köpke S, Geiger F. MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34849. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034849. Epub 2012 Apr 13. PMID: 22514677; PMCID: PMC3325952.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34849. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034849. Epub 2012 Apr 13.

MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making.

PloS one

Jürgen Kasper, Frauke Hoffmann, Christoph Heesen, Sascha Köpke, Friedemann Geiger

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics, Unit of Health Sciences and Education, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. [email protected]

PMID: 22514677 PMCID: PMC3325952 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034849

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The wide scale permeation of health care by the shared decision making concept (SDM) reflects its relevance and advanced stage of development. An increasing number of studies evaluating the efficacy of SDM use instruments based on various sub-constructs administered from different viewpoints. However, as the concept has never been captured in operable core definition it is quite difficult to link these parts of evidence. This study aims at investigating interrelations of SDM indicators administered from different perspectives.

METHOD: A comprehensive inventory was developed mapping judgements from different perspectives (observer, doctor, patient) and constructs (behavior, perception) referring to three units (doctor, patient, doctor-patient-dyad) and an identical set of SDM-indicators. The inventory adopted the existing approaches, but added additional observer foci (patient and doctor-patient-dyad) and relevant indicators hitherto neglected by existing instruments. The complete inventory comprising a doctor-patient-questionnaire and an observer-instrument was applied to 40 decision consultations from 10 physicians from different medical fields. Convergent validities were calculated on the basis of Pearson correlation coefficients.

RESULTS: Reliabilities for all scales were high to excellent. No correlations were found between observer and patients or physicians neither for means nor for single items. Judgements of doctors and patients were moderately related. Correlations between the observer scales and within the subjective perspectives were high. Inter-perspective agreement was not related to SDM performance or patient activity.

CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the contribution to involvement made by each of the relevant perspectives and emphasizes the need for an inter-subjective approach regarding SDM measurement.

References

  1. Health Expect. 2012 Mar;15(1):3-11 - PubMed
  2. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):93-9 - PubMed
  3. Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681-92 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26255 - PubMed
  5. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):177-83 - PubMed
  6. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):284-90 - PubMed
  7. Behav Med. 2003 Winter;28(4):159-64 - PubMed
  8. J Gen Intern Med. 1988 Mar-Apr;3(2):144-9 - PubMed
  9. Ann Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;4(1):54-62 - PubMed
  10. BMJ. 1997 May 31;314(7094):1580-3 - PubMed
  11. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Mar;60(3):301-12 - PubMed
  12. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9 - PubMed
  13. Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):235-45 - PubMed
  14. Ann Intern Med. 1980 Sep;93(3):490-3 - PubMed
  15. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(4):284-9 - PubMed
  16. Acta Neurol Scand. 2003 May;107(5):363-8 - PubMed
  17. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2007 Oct-Dec;16(4):339-49 - PubMed
  18. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(4):313-24 - PubMed
  19. Ann Fam Med. 2008 May-Jun;6(3):218-27 - PubMed
  20. Ann Fam Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;3(5):436-42 - PubMed
  21. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 Jan-Feb;5(1):29-33 - PubMed
  22. J Interprof Care. 2011 Jan;25(1):18-25 - PubMed
  23. Soc Sci Med. 2001 Sep;53(6):721-32 - PubMed
  24. Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Apr;43(1):5-22 - PubMed
  25. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(4):275-83 - PubMed
  26. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):316-28 - PubMed
  27. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):357-64 - PubMed
  28. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):766-71 - PubMed
  29. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Nov;63(3):319-27 - PubMed
  30. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006 Jul;32(1):71-81 - PubMed
  31. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):519-25 - PubMed
  32. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Nov;63(3):268-78 - PubMed
  33. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD001431 - PubMed
  34. Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Oct;55(1):105-13 - PubMed
  35. Health Expect. 2010 Sep;13(3):244-57 - PubMed
  36. Med Decis Making. 2009 Jan-Feb;29(1):61-8 - PubMed
  37. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(4):229-33 - PubMed
  38. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Nov;63(3):314-8 - PubMed
  39. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):418-25 - PubMed
  40. Am J Public Health. 1981 Feb;71(2):127-31 - PubMed
  41. Health Expect. 2005 Mar;8(1):34-42 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types