Table 3 Characteristics of the newly developed instruments (n=7)

SDM-Q-Doc

Scholl I, 2012 [34]

Professional

German

Inpatients and outpatients

1 dimension;

9 items

6-point scale

Real consultations

PHYSICIANS: N = 29/General practitioners 51.7 %, orthopaedists 13.8 %, psychiatrists 13.8 %, diabetologists 20.7 % PATIENTS: N = 324/external patients of primary and secondary care with a chronic back pain, type 2 diabetes, or depression

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88

ICC = 0.35–0.76

Content validity: unknown

Face validity: Yes

Construct validity: Yes

Convergent/Discriminant validity: Yes

Pre-existent tool (SDM-Q, 2006) and theory-driven: Nine practical steps of the SDM process defined by the authors: disclosure that a decision needs to be made,

formulation of equality of partners,

presentation of treatment options,

informing on the benefits and risks of the options,

investigation of patient’s understanding and expectations, identification of both parties’ preferences,

negotiation,

reaching a shared decision,

arrangement of follow-up

Mappin’SDM

Kasper J, 2012 [35]

Patient, professional, observer

German

Inpatients and outpatients

15 items

5-point Likert scale

Real consultations

(video recording) 40 consultations physician-patient videorecorded (Hambourg)/average duration 19.5 min (2.5–51 min)/average duration of decision sequence 15 min (2.5 to 38.8 min)//

PHYSICIANS: N = 10/neurologists and internal medicine 40 %, dentists 30 %, general practitioners 30 % PATIENTS: N = 40/55 % of men

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91–0.94

ICC = Yes

Face validity: unknown

Construct validity: No

Convergent/Discriminant validity: Yes

Theory-driven (created by the authors): three perspectives, two constructs, three units and seven focus result in a set of three tools, each of them measuring the same fifteen items

Informed decision making instrument

Leader A, 2012 [36]

Observer

English

Inpatients and outpatients

3 dimensions

9 items

Patient empowerment (1)

Information sharing (4)

Active engagement in preference clarification (4)

2 point-scale

Real consultations audio recorded

N = 146

PHYSICIANS: N = 22

PATIENTS: N = 146 men candidates screening of prostate cancer

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80

ICC = 0.81

Construct validity: use of an existing instrument

Theory-driven:

Nine elements of Informed Decision Making developed by Dr Braddock [56]:

the patient’s role in decision making,

the impact of the decision on the patient’s daily life (context of decision),

the nature of the decision or clinical issue,

alternatives,

pros and cons surrounding alternatives,

uncertainties regarding alternatives,

physician assessment of the patient’s understanding, physician assessment of the patient’s desire for input from trusted others,

physician solicitation and exploration of the patient’s preference

SDM’Mass (SDM Meeting its concept’s ASSumptions)

Geiger F, 2012 [37]

Patient, professional, observer

German

Inpatients and outpatients

15 items

5-point Likert scales

Real consultations video recorded

N = 40

Average duration 20 min (2.5–51 min; SD = 11)/Average duration of decision sequence 15 min (3 to 39 min; SD = 8)//

PHYSICIANS: N = 10/neurologists and internal medicine 40 %, dentists 30 %, general practitioners 30 %

PATIENTS: N = 40/55 % of men

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94

ICC = 0.74–0.87

Face validity: unknown

Construct validity: No

Convergent/discriminant validity: No

Theory-driven (created by the authors): Three perspectives, two constructs, three units and seven focus result in a set of three tools, each of them measuring the same fifteen items

CICAA-Decision

Ruiz Moral R, 2010 [38]

Observer (on professional ‘s behaviour)

Spanish

Outpatient

3 dimensions;

17 items

Identifying and understanding problems (2)

Reach an agreement and help to act (11)

Decisions with options (4)

3-point scale

Real and fictional consultations

N = 111 real patients and N = 50 simulated patients

(Video recording) 161 consultations videorecorded: 61 consultations between “professional” and patient with chronic disease (diabetes et chronic pain) + 100 consultations between last year’s residents and new patients (50) or simulated patients (50)//

Then selection of 32 consultations (20 % where item 25 is positive = a bit of participation is detected)/average duration = 11.3 min (SD = 5.6; IC95 = 9.2-13.3)

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.60–0.51 (1st and 2nd encounter)

ICC global = 0.96

Content validity: Yes

Face validity: Yes

Construct validity: Yes

Convergent/discriminant validity: No

Pre-existent tool (CICAA-CP) and literature research (review of pre-existing conceptual frameworks)

Dyadic measure of SDM

Légaré F, 2012 [33]

Patient, professional

English and Quebec French (patient and doctors recruited in Ontario and Québec)

Outpatient

7dimensions;

30 items

Information giving (9)

Values clarification (3)

Doctor recommendations (5)

Self-efficacy (3)

Feeling uninformed (3)

Information verifying (4)

Uncertainty (3)

5-point scale and 10-point scale (different subscales)

Real consultations

PHYSICIANS: N = 272/english language N = 109, french N = 163

PATIENTS: N = 269/english language N = 108, french language N = 161/69 % of women/average age 49 (SD = 18)

Complete DYAD: N = 259 (after consultation)

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90

ICC = 0.43–0.82

Face validity: No

Construct validity: Yes

Convergent/discriminant validity: No

Criterion validity: correlation with OPTION scale: Yes

sensitivity analysis (AUC and ROC)

Agreement across raters: ICC

Pre-existent tools and theory-driven (created by the authors): Based on Makoul and Clayman model, creation of a dyadic model that conceptualized the interpersonal and interdependent elements of the relationship between physicians and patients

Then identification of instruments tested on both physicians and patients. Finally cross-cultural adaptation of the identified subscales that mapped the essential elements of SDM included in their dyadic model

Collaborate

Barr PJ, 2014 [39]

Observer (citizen; has to put in patient’s place)

English

Inappropriate

3 dimensions;

3 items

Explanation of the health issue

Elicitation of patient preferences

Integration of patient preferences

2 versions: 5-point scale, and 10-point scale

Fictional consultations

N = 6 simulated videos of encounters physician-patient

OBSERVERS: N = 1341 in study 1/N = 251 in study 2 (1–2 weeks after first answer)/On N = 1341: 46 % of men/47 % of 18-44 years, 33 % of 45-64 years, 20 % of 65 years and more/public in general population acting as the observer. Recruited by the 2010 US Census/representative sample of general population of USA

Cronbach’s alpha: No

ICC = 0.76–0.90

Convergent/Discriminant validity: Yes

Criterion validity: Yes

Sensitivity to change: Yes

Theory-driven (created by the authors): the “talk model” developed by authors in a previous study [25]