Search

Background: This study examined the performance of the shared decision-making (SDM) Process scale in patients with depression, compared alternative wording of two items in the scale and explored performance in younger adults., Methods: A web-based non-probability panel of respondents with depression aged 18-39 (younger) or 40-75 (older) who talked with a health-care provider about starting or stopping treatment for depression in the past year were surveyed. Respondents completed one of two versions of the SDM Process scale that differed in the wording of pros and cons items and completed measures of decisional conflict, decision regret and who made the decision (mainly the respondent, mainly the provider or together). A subset of respondents completed a retest survey by 1 week. We examined how version and age group impacted SDM Process scores and calculated construct validity and retest reliability. We hypothesized that patients with higher SDM Process scores would show less decisional conflict using the SURE scale (range = 0-4); top score = no conflict versus other and less regret (range 1-4; higher scores indicated more regret)., Results: The sample (N = 494) was majority White, non-Hispanic (82%) and female (72%), 48% were younger and 23% had a high school education or less. SDM Process scores did not differ by version (P = 0.09). SDM Process scores were higher for younger respondents (M = 2.6, SD = 1.0) than older respondents (M = 2.3, SD = 1.1; P = 0.001). Higher SDM Process scores were also associated with no decisional conflict (M = 2.6, SD = 0.99 vs. M = 2.1, SD = 1.2; P < 0.001) and less decision regret (r = -0.18, P < 0.001). Retest reliability was intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81., Conclusions: The SDM Process scale demonstrated validity and retest reliability in younger adults, and changes to item wording did not impact scores. Although younger respondents reported more SDM, there is room for improvement in SDM for depression treatment decisions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To assess the impact of patient health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy on perceptions of hypertension control using different forms of data visualization., Materials and Methods: Participants (Internet sample of 1079 patients with hypertension) reviewed 12 brief vignettes describing a fictitious patient; each vignette included a graph of the patient's blood pressure (BP) data. We examined how variations in mean systolic blood pressure, BP standard deviation, and form of visualization (eg, data table, graph with raw values or smoothed values only) affected judgments about hypertension control and need for medication change. We also measured patient's health literacy, subjective and objective numeracy, and graph literacy., Results: Judgments about hypertension data presented as a smoothed graph were significantly more positive (ie, hypertension deemed to be better controlled) then judgments about the same data presented as either a data table or an unsmoothed graph. Hypertension data viewed in tabular form was perceived more positively than graphs of the raw data. Data visualization had the greatest impact on participants with high graph literacy., Discussion: Data visualization can direct patients to attend to more clinically meaningful information, thereby improving their judgments of hypertension control. However, patients with lower graph literacy may still have difficulty accessing important information from data visualizations., Conclusion: Addressing uncertainty inherent in the variability between BP measurements is an important consideration in visualization design. Well-designed data visualization could help to alleviate clinical uncertainty, one of the key drivers of clinical inertia and uncontrolled hypertension., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)