<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03266796</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>Projekt ID: 2017-00848</org_study_id>
    <nct_id>NCT03266796</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>Shared Decision Making in Physical Therapy: a Cross-sectional Observational Study</brief_title>
  <official_title>Shared Decision Making in Physical Therapy: a Cross-sectional Observational Study</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>Klinik Valens</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
  </sponsors>
  <source>Klinik Valens</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>Yes</has_dmc>
    <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
    <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recommended in health care and reduces the&#xD;
      unbalanced power between physical therapists and patients. There is an increased focus on&#xD;
      communication between physical therapists and their patients during the goal setting process&#xD;
      in current research. This study will focus on SDM in physical therapy goal setting.&#xD;
&#xD;
      The SDM Process includes a problem definition and different goal options. Good communication&#xD;
      between physical therapists and patients during the goal setting process with an explicit&#xD;
      agreeing on both sides regarding treatment goals and options improves patient satisfaction,&#xD;
      treatment adherence and health outcomes.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Patients generally prefer to be actively involved in the shared decision making process.&#xD;
      However, the preferred level of involvement of patients regarding decisions differs.&#xD;
      Therefore, physical therapist should consider about patients' preferred level of involvement&#xD;
      in shared decision making. Previous research observed SDM behaviours of physical therapists&#xD;
      only in private practice settings. Research in other settings like the rehabilitation setting&#xD;
      are recommended. It is unknown whether there are differences between settings in the SDM&#xD;
      behaviours of physical therapists during first consultation.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      Background&#xD;
&#xD;
      Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recommended in health care and reduces the&#xD;
      unbalanced power between physical therapists and patients. There is an increased focus on&#xD;
      communication between physical therapists and their patients during the goal setting process&#xD;
      in current research. This study will focus on SDM in physical therapy goal setting.&#xD;
&#xD;
      The SDM Process includes a problem definition and different goal options. Therefore, SDM may&#xD;
      be especially important during the goal setting process in the first consultation, where a&#xD;
      problem definition and several goal options are of interest.&#xD;
&#xD;
      An increased involvement of patients in SDM is based on clear information, empathy, two-way&#xD;
      communication and respect for patients' beliefs and concerns. Therefore, patients are more&#xD;
      willing to reveal information. Good communication between physical therapists and patients&#xD;
      during the goal setting process with an explicit agreeing on both sides regarding treatment&#xD;
      goals and options improves patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health outcomes.&#xD;
&#xD;
      During the shared goal setting several topics should be discussed including patient's&#xD;
      expectations and concerns, different possible goals and their pros and cons. The quality of&#xD;
      this communication during the goal setting process can be evaluated by the OPTION Scale.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Patients generally prefer to be actively involved in the shared decision making process.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Previous research observed SDM behaviours of physical therapists, the patient's preferred&#xD;
      level of involvement and the agreement between the patient's preferred level of involvement&#xD;
      and the physical therapists' perception of the patient's preference during different therapy&#xD;
      consultations in private practice settings.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Communication between physical therapists and patients may be affected by patient's&#xD;
      self-efficacy and educational background and physical therapist's education and working&#xD;
      experiences. These factors will therefore be evaluated in the planned study. In addition,&#xD;
      therapists should consider patients individual preferences regarding their preferred level of&#xD;
      involvement in the goal setting process. The control preference scale measures patients'&#xD;
      preferred level of involvement and physical therapists' perception of this level.&#xD;
&#xD;
      It is unknown whether there are differences between settings in the SDM behaviours of&#xD;
      physical therapists. SDM may be different in rehabilitation and private practice settings. As&#xD;
      in private practice one physical therapist is treating the patient, there are several&#xD;
      physical therapists treating the patient in rehabilitation setting.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Completed</overall_status>
  <start_date type="Actual">September 1, 2017</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Actual">March 5, 2018</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Actual">January 31, 2018</primary_completion_date>
  <study_type>Observational</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <observational_model>Other</observational_model>
    <time_perspective>Cross-Sectional</time_perspective>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>OPTION scale</measure>
    <time_frame>day 1 (e.g. &quot;through study completion, an average of 1 year&quot;)</time_frame>
    <description>The OPTION scale measures physical therapists behaviour in shared decision making. It is a measurement that evaluates the involvement of patients in shared decision making and was shown to be reliable (Elwyn et al., 2003). The OPTION scale includes items looking at communication between physical therapist and patient, especially an identified problem, patient's beliefs and concerns, different goal and treatment option and their pros and cons, patient's preferred level of involvement, possibilities for patient's to ask questions and a review of the physical therapist at the end.</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Control Preference Scale (CPS)</measure>
    <time_frame>day 1 (e.g. &quot;through study completion, an average of 1 year&quot;)</time_frame>
    <description>The Control Preference Scale (CPS) measures physical therapists perception about their patient's preferences and patient's preference in SDM. The CPS is valid and reliable in healthcare decision making, easy to conduct and clinically relevant (Degner et al., 1997).</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)</measure>
    <time_frame>day 1 (e.g. &quot;through study completion, an average of 1 year&quot;)</time_frame>
    <description>The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) measures self-reported self-efficacy. The GSE is valid and Cronbach's alpha of internal reliability is between .76 and .90. Positive correlations to emotion, optimism, work satisfaction and negative correlations to depression, stress, health complaints, burnout and anxiety are examined. (Luszczynska et al., 2005) The GSE is potentially associated with SDM preference.</description>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Characteristics of patients and physical therapists</measure>
    <time_frame>day 1 (e.g. &quot;through study completion, an average of 1 year&quot;)</time_frame>
    <description>The following characteristics will be assessed because of their possible influence on SDM preferences.&#xD;
Patients: age, sex, previous therapy for current problem, profession Physiotherapists: age, sex, work experiences in years, education</description>
  </other_outcome>
  <number_of_groups>1</number_of_groups>
  <enrollment type="Actual">30</enrollment>
  <condition>Shared Decision Making</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Patients &amp; Physical therapists</arm_group_label>
    <description>First consultations of peoples with musculoskeletal disorders and their physical therapists will be audiotaped. Audiotapes will be used to analyse the communication between the patients and their physicaltherapists to explore how much physical therapists involve their patients in the goal setting process, to see if there is a shared decision making existing.</description>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Behavioral</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>goal setting process</intervention_name>
    <description>goal setting process during the first consultation</description>
    <arm_group_label>Patients &amp; Physical therapists</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <study_pop>
      <textblock>
        Thirty patients will be recruited. The planned sample may seem heterogenic because patients&#xD;
        with all musculoskeletal conditions are included. However, the goal setting process is&#xD;
        expected to be independent of diagnosis and the sample is therefore considered sufficiently&#xD;
        homogeneous.&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </study_pop>
    <sampling_method>Probability Sample</sampling_method>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
        musculoskeletal disorders First treatment German speaking&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
        n/a&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>N/A</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>No</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <overall_official>
    <last_name>Andrea C. Hausheer, cand. MScPT</last_name>
    <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    <affiliation>Klinik Valens</affiliation>
  </overall_official>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>Kliniken Valens</name>
      <address>
        <city>Valens</city>
        <zip>7317</zip>
        <country>Switzerland</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
  </location>
  <location_countries>
    <country>Switzerland</country>
  </location_countries>
  <link>
    <url>http://www.nivel.nl/node/2430?database=ChoicePublicat&amp;priref=1001403</url>
    <description>Dulmen, A.M., van, Bensing, J.M. (2001).The effect of context in healthcare: a programming study.</description>
  </link>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Beers E, Lee Nilsen M, Johnson JT. The Role of Patients: Shared Decision-Making. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2017 Aug;50(4):689-708. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2017.03.006. Epub 2017 May 30.</citation>
    <PMID>28571664</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Durand MA, Yen R, Barr PJ, Cochran N, Aarts J, Legare F, Reed M, James O'Malley A, Scalia P, Painchaud Guerard G, Elwyn G. Assessing medical student knowledge and attitudes about shared decision making across the curriculum: protocol for an international online survey and stakeholder analysis. BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 23;7(6):e015945. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015945.</citation>
    <PMID>28645974</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Dierckx K, Deveugele M, Roosen P, Devisch I. Implementation of shared decision making in physical therapy: observed level of involvement and patient preference. Phys Ther. 2013 Oct;93(10):1321-30. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120286. Epub 2013 May 2.</citation>
    <PMID>23641024</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):93-9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.</citation>
    <PMID>12679504</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, Kriston L, Niebling W, Harter M. The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Aug;67(3):324-32. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023. Epub 2007 May 16.</citation>
    <PMID>17509808</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Bertakis KD. The communication of information from physician to patient: a method for increasing patient retention and satisfaction. J Fam Pract. 1977 Aug;5(2):217-22.</citation>
    <PMID>894226</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Brady TJ. The patient's role in rheumatology care. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1998 Mar;10(2):146-51. doi: 10.1097/00002281-199803000-00011.</citation>
    <PMID>9567211</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Roter DL, Hall JA, Merisca R, Nordstrom B, Cretin D, Svarstad B. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 1998 Aug;36(8):1138-61. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199808000-00004.</citation>
    <PMID>9708588</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE Jr. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S110-27. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010. Erratum In: Med Care 1989 Jul;27(7):679.</citation>
    <PMID>2646486</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S. Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub2.</citation>
    <PMID>20091628</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jan;86(1):9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Apr 6.</citation>
    <PMID>21474265</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Burton D, Blundell N, Jones M, Fraser A, Elwyn G. Shared decision-making in cardiology: do patients want it and do doctors provide it? Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):173-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.013. Epub 2009 Nov 30.</citation>
    <PMID>19945818</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Weiss MC, Peters TJ. Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and Informed Decision Making instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Jan;70(1):79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.001. Epub 2007 Oct 17.</citation>
    <PMID>17942270</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43.</citation>
    <PMID>9505581</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 3;3(1):e001570. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570.</citation>
    <PMID>23293244</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Elwyn G, Edwards A, Mowle S, Wensing M, Wilkinson C, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Apr;43(1):5-22. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00149-x.</citation>
    <PMID>11311834</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol. 2005 Sep;139(5):439-57. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457.</citation>
    <PMID>16285214</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <verification_date>March 2018</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>August 5, 2017</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>August 29, 2017</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Actual">August 30, 2017</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>March 5, 2018</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>March 5, 2018</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">March 6, 2018</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Principal Investigator</responsible_party_type>
    <investigator_affiliation>Klinik Valens</investigator_affiliation>
    <investigator_full_name>Andrea Hausheer, cand. MScPT</investigator_full_name>
    <investigator_title>BSc</investigator_title>
  </responsible_party>
  <patient_data>
    <sharing_ipd>Undecided</sharing_ipd>
  </patient_data>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03266796
org study id: Projekt ID: 2017-00848
nct id: NCT03266796
lead sponsor: 
has dmc: Yes
is fda regulated drug: No
is fda regulated device: No
Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recommended in health care and reduces the
      unbalanced power between physical therapists and patients. There is an increased focus on
      communication between physical therapists and their patients during the goal setting process
      in current research. This study will focus on SDM in physical therapy goal setting.

      The SDM Process includes a problem definition and different goal options. Good communication
      between physical therapists and patients during the goal setting process with an explicit
      agreeing on both sides regarding treatment goals and options improves patient satisfaction,
      treatment adherence and health outcomes.

      Patients generally prefer to be actively involved in the shared decision making process.
      However, the preferred level of involvement of patients regarding decisions differs.
      Therefore, physical therapist should consider about patients' preferred level of involvement
      in shared decision making. Previous research observed SDM behaviours of physical therapists
      only in private practice settings. Research in other settings like the rehabilitation setting
      are recommended. It is unknown whether there are differences between settings in the SDM
      behaviours of physical therapists during first consultation.
Background

      Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recommended in health care and reduces the
      unbalanced power between physical therapists and patients. There is an increased focus on
      communication between physical therapists and their patients during the goal setting process
      in current research. This study will focus on SDM in physical therapy goal setting.

      The SDM Process includes a problem definition and different goal options. Therefore, SDM may
      be especially important during the goal setting process in the first consultation, where a
      problem definition and several goal options are of interest.

      An increased involvement of patients in SDM is based on clear information, empathy, two-way
      communication and respect for patients' beliefs and concerns. Therefore, patients are more
      willing to reveal information. Good communication between physical therapists and patients
      during the goal setting process with an explicit agreeing on both sides regarding treatment
      goals and options improves patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health outcomes.

      During the shared goal setting several topics should be discussed including patient's
      expectations and concerns, different possible goals and their pros and cons. The quality of
      this communication during the goal setting process can be evaluated by the OPTION Scale.

      Patients generally prefer to be actively involved in the shared decision making process.

      Previous research observed SDM behaviours of physical therapists, the patient's preferred
      level of involvement and the agreement between the patient's preferred level of involvement
      and the physical therapists' perception of the patient's preference during different therapy
      consultations in private practice settings.

      Communication between physical therapists and patients may be affected by patient's
      self-efficacy and educational background and physical therapist's education and working
      experiences. These factors will therefore be evaluated in the planned study. In addition,
      therapists should consider patients individual preferences regarding their preferred level of
      involvement in the goal setting process. The control preference scale measures patients'
      preferred level of involvement and physical therapists' perception of this level.

      It is unknown whether there are differences between settings in the SDM behaviours of
      physical therapists. SDM may be different in rehabilitation and private practice settings. As
      in private practice one physical therapist is treating the patient, there are several
      physical therapists treating the patient in rehabilitation setting.
observational model: Other
time perspective: Cross-Sectional
measure: OPTION scale
time frame: day 1 (e.g. "through study completion, an average of 1 year")
description: The OPTION scale measures physical therapists behaviour in shared decision making. It is a measurement that evaluates the involvement of patients in shared decision making and was shown to be reliable (Elwyn et al., 2003). The OPTION scale includes items looking at communication between physical therapist and patient, especially an identified problem, patient's beliefs and concerns, different goal and treatment option and their pros and cons, patient's preferred level of involvement, possibilities for patient's to ask questions and a review of the physical therapist at the end.
measure: Control Preference Scale (CPS)
time frame: day 1 (e.g. "through study completion, an average of 1 year")
description: The Control Preference Scale (CPS) measures physical therapists perception about their patient's preferences and patient's preference in SDM. The CPS is valid and reliable in healthcare decision making, easy to conduct and clinically relevant (Degner et al., 1997).
measure: General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)
time frame: day 1 (e.g. "through study completion, an average of 1 year")
description: The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) measures self-reported self-efficacy. The GSE is valid and Cronbach's alpha of internal reliability is between .76 and .90. Positive correlations to emotion, optimism, work satisfaction and negative correlations to depression, stress, health complaints, burnout and anxiety are examined. (Luszczynska et al., 2005) The GSE is potentially associated with SDM preference.
measure: Characteristics of patients and physical therapists
time frame: day 1 (e.g. "through study completion, an average of 1 year")
description: The following characteristics will be assessed because of their possible influence on SDM preferences.
Patients: age, sex, previous therapy for current problem, profession Physiotherapists: age, sex, work experiences in years, education
arm group label: Patients & Physical therapists
description: First consultations of peoples with musculoskeletal disorders and their physical therapists will be audiotaped. Audiotapes will be used to analyse the communication between the patients and their physicaltherapists to explore how much physical therapists involve their patients in the goal setting process, to see if there is a shared decision making existing.
intervention type: Behavioral
intervention name: goal setting process
description: goal setting process during the first consultation
arm group label: Patients & Physical therapists
study pop: 
sampling method: Probability Sample
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: N/A
healthy volunteers: No
last name: Andrea C. Hausheer, cand. MScPT
role: Principal Investigator
affiliation: Klinik Valens
facility: 
country: Switzerland
url: http://www.nivel.nl/node/2430?database=ChoicePublicat&priref=1001403
description: Dulmen, A.M., van, Bensing, J.M. (2001).The effect of context in healthcare: a programming study.
citation: Beers E, Lee Nilsen M, Johnson JT. The Role of Patients: Shared Decision-Making. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2017 Aug;50(4):689-708. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2017.03.006. Epub 2017 May 30.
PMID: 28571664
citation: Durand MA, Yen R, Barr PJ, Cochran N, Aarts J, Legare F, Reed M, James O'Malley A, Scalia P, Painchaud Guerard G, Elwyn G. Assessing medical student knowledge and attitudes about shared decision making across the curriculum: protocol for an international online survey and stakeholder analysis. BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 23;7(6):e015945. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015945.
PMID: 28645974
citation: Dierckx K, Deveugele M, Roosen P, Devisch I. Implementation of shared decision making in physical therapy: observed level of involvement and patient preference. Phys Ther. 2013 Oct;93(10):1321-30. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120286. Epub 2013 May 2.
PMID: 23641024
citation: Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):93-9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.
PMID: 12679504
citation: Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, Kriston L, Niebling W, Harter M. The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Aug;67(3):324-32. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023. Epub 2007 May 16.
PMID: 17509808
citation: Bertakis KD. The communication of information from physician to patient: a method for increasing patient retention and satisfaction. J Fam Pract. 1977 Aug;5(2):217-22.
PMID: 894226
citation: Brady TJ. The patient's role in rheumatology care. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1998 Mar;10(2):146-51. doi: 10.1097/00002281-199803000-00011.
PMID: 9567211
citation: Roter DL, Hall JA, Merisca R, Nordstrom B, Cretin D, Svarstad B. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 1998 Aug;36(8):1138-61. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199808000-00004.
PMID: 9708588
citation: Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE Jr. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S110-27. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010. Erratum In: Med Care 1989 Jul;27(7):679.
PMID: 2646486
citation: Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S. Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub2.
PMID: 20091628
citation: Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jan;86(1):9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Apr 6.
PMID: 21474265
citation: Burton D, Blundell N, Jones M, Fraser A, Elwyn G. Shared decision-making in cardiology: do patients want it and do doctors provide it? Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):173-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.013. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
PMID: 19945818
citation: Weiss MC, Peters TJ. Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and Informed Decision Making instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Jan;70(1):79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.001. Epub 2007 Oct 17.
PMID: 17942270
citation: Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43.
PMID: 9505581
citation: Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 3;3(1):e001570. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570.
PMID: 23293244
citation: Elwyn G, Edwards A, Mowle S, Wensing M, Wilkinson C, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Apr;43(1):5-22. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00149-x.
PMID: 11311834
citation: Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol. 2005 Sep;139(5):439-57. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457.
PMID: 16285214
responsible party type: Principal Investigator
investigator affiliation: Klinik Valens
investigator full name: Andrea Hausheer, cand. MScPT
investigator title: BSc
sharing ipd: Undecided