Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making.
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug; 88(2):277-83.PE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate items for inclusion in PRIDe (Preferred Role in Decision Making), a new tool to assess changes of role preference among professionals exposed to training in shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

This study was part of a pilot trial to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training on the doctors' prescription of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Thirty-nine family physicians were randomized to immediate exposure to training or to delayed exposure. Potential items for PRIDe and a questionnaire about physicians' intention to engage in SDM were administered at baseline and at follow-up.

RESULTS

Following analysis, we retained five items that captured a change in physicians' preference. The items' scores were pooled and the resulting tool showed limited internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.41) but significant test-retest reliability (immediate group: P = 0.03; delayed group: P = 0.008) and acceptable discriminant validity, with patients involved in decision making more actively after training than before (Fisher's test, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

This initial step to develop an evaluation tool to assess changes in doctors' preference of role in decision making following SDM training shows promising results. The next step is to develop more clinical vignettes followed by questions inspired from this analysis.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The PRIDe instrument can be used in the assessment of health professionals' attitude towards shared decision making after training in shared decision making. Additional research is needed to evaluate its validity before it can be recommended for use.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Health Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. anikgiguere@videotron.caNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22543001

Citation

Giguère, Anik, et al. "Development of PRIDe: a Tool to Assess Physicians' Preference of Role in Clinical Decision Making." Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 88, no. 2, 2012, pp. 277-83.
Giguère A, Labrecque M, Njoya M, et al. Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):277-83.
Giguère, A., Labrecque, M., Njoya, M., Thivierge, R., & Légaré, F. (2012). Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making. Patient Education and Counseling, 88(2), 277-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.003
Giguère A, et al. Development of PRIDe: a Tool to Assess Physicians' Preference of Role in Clinical Decision Making. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):277-83. PubMed PMID: 22543001.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making. AU - Giguère,Anik, AU - Labrecque,Michel, AU - Njoya,Merlin, AU - Thivierge,Robert, AU - Légaré,France, Y1 - 2012/04/27/ PY - 2011/04/19/received PY - 2012/02/11/revised PY - 2012/03/02/accepted PY - 2012/5/1/entrez PY - 2012/5/1/pubmed PY - 2012/10/27/medline SP - 277 EP - 83 JF - Patient education and counseling JO - Patient Educ Couns VL - 88 IS - 2 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate items for inclusion in PRIDe (Preferred Role in Decision Making), a new tool to assess changes of role preference among professionals exposed to training in shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: This study was part of a pilot trial to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training on the doctors' prescription of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Thirty-nine family physicians were randomized to immediate exposure to training or to delayed exposure. Potential items for PRIDe and a questionnaire about physicians' intention to engage in SDM were administered at baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: Following analysis, we retained five items that captured a change in physicians' preference. The items' scores were pooled and the resulting tool showed limited internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.41) but significant test-retest reliability (immediate group: P = 0.03; delayed group: P = 0.008) and acceptable discriminant validity, with patients involved in decision making more actively after training than before (Fisher's test, P = .02). CONCLUSION: This initial step to develop an evaluation tool to assess changes in doctors' preference of role in decision making following SDM training shows promising results. The next step is to develop more clinical vignettes followed by questions inspired from this analysis. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PRIDe instrument can be used in the assessment of health professionals' attitude towards shared decision making after training in shared decision making. Additional research is needed to evaluate its validity before it can be recommended for use. SN - 1873-5134 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22543001/Development_of_PRIDe:_a_tool_to_assess_physicians'_preference_of_role_in_clinical_decision_making_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0738-3991(12)00116-4 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -