Development and psychometric properties of a five-language multiperspective instrument to assess clinical decision making style in the treatment of people with severe mental illness (CDMS)

BMC Psychiatry

Research Article

Arlette Bär¹  Wolfram Kawohl¹  Sabine Loos²  Bernd Puschner²  Petra Neumann²  Andrea Fiorillo³  Domenico Giacco³  Anikó Égerházi⁴  Tibor Ivánka⁴  Mike Slade⁵  Harriet Jordan⁵  Helle Østermark Sørensen⁶  Malene Krogsgaard Bording⁶ 

[1] Department of General and Social Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ludwig-Heilmeyer-Str. 2, 89312, Günzburg, Germany;Department of Psychiatry, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy;Department of Psychiatry, University of Debrecen Medical and Health Science Center, Debrecen, Hungary;King’s College London, Section for Recovery, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK;Unit for Psychiatric Research, Aalborg Psychiatric Hospital, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark;

关键词: Focus Group;    Mental Health Service;    Mental Health Professional;    Severe Mental Illness;    Instrument Development;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-13-48

 received in 2012-07-25, accepted in 2013-01-29,  发布年份 2013

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to develop and evaluate psychometric properties of the Clinical Decision Making Style (CDMS) scale which measures general preferences for decision making as well as preferences regarding the provision of information to the patient from the perspectives of people with severe mental illness and staff.MethodsA participatory approach was chosen for instrument development which followed 10 sequential steps proposed in a current guideline of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation of measures. Following item analysis, reliability, validity, and long-term stability of the CDMS were examined using Spearman correlations in a sample of 588 people with severe mental illness and 213 mental health professionals in 6 European countries (Germany, UK, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, and Switzerland).ResultsIn both patient and staff versions, the two CDMS subscales “Participation in Decision Making” and “Information” reliably measure distinct characteristics of decision making. Validity could be demonstrated to some extent, but needs further investigation.ConclusionsTogether with two other five-language patient- and staff-rated measures developed in the CEDAR study (ISRCTN75841675) – “Clinical Decision Making in Routine Care” and “Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction” – the CDMS allows empirical investigation of the complex relation between clinical decision making and outcome in the treatment of people with severe mental illness across Europe.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Puschner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013