Development of a measure of decision quality for implantable defibrillators.
Background: CMS reimbursement guidelines for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) include mandated shared decision making (SDM), but without any manner of assessing the quality of decisions made. We developed and tested a scale meant to assess patients' knowledge of and preferences specifi...
| Publicado en: | Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology Vol. 44; no. 4; pp. 677 - 685 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Apr2021
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=149757152&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 149757152 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 01478389 4F8 jtl: Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology issn: 01478389 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Apr2021 vid: 44 iid: 4 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 149757152 149757152 149757152 10.1111/pace.14189 149757152 ppf: 677 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Development of a measure of decision quality for implantable defibrillators. aug: au: Knoepke, Christopher E. Allen, Larry A. Sepucha, Karen Masoudi, Frederick A. Kutner, Jean Varosy, Paul Magid, David Matlock, Daniel D. affil: Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora Colorado,, USA sug: subj: Defibrillators, Implantable Decision Making, Shared Evaluation Health Knowledge Evaluation Patient Preference Evaluation Instrument Construction Instrument Validation Scales Human Validation Studies Content Validity Descriptive Statistics Test-Retest Reliability Discriminant Validity Cardiologists ab: Background: CMS reimbursement guidelines for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) include mandated shared decision making (SDM), but without any manner of assessing the quality of decisions made. We developed and tested a scale meant to assess patients' knowledge of and preferences specific to ICDs. Such a tool would assess these constructs in the clinical environment, targeting resources and support for patients considering a primary prevention ICD. Methods: Development of the ICD decision quality (ICD‐DQ) scale included (1) item creation, (2) content validation using surveys of patients (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 31), and (3) examination of validity and reliability using a survey of patients who previously received an ICD (n = 295, response rate = 72%). Results: The final scale consists of 12 knowledge and 8 preference items. With respect to content validity, clinician and patient respondents agreed on the importance of 19 of 24 candidate knowledge items (79%), and 9 of 11 treatment preference items (81%). Knowledge items exhibited moderate internal validity (α = 0.62, 1 factor), strong test‐retest reliability (mean % correct at first administration = 59%, 62% at follow‐up, P >.1) and discriminant validity (59% correct for patients, 93% among cardiologists). Short versions of the ICD‐DQ were developed for clinical settings, the scores from both of which correlated with the long version in this cohort (11‐item (r = 0.90) and a 5‐item (r = 0.75)). Conclusions: : The ICD‐DQ fills a critical gap in measuring the quality of patients' ICD decisions. They may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids or the quality of SDM in clinical practice. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|