Skip to main content

Table 1 Content of draft version of survey following academic workshop

From: Men’s view on participation in decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening: patient and public involvement in development of a survey

Content of draft version of survey following academic workshop

• Brief description of the main study purpose

• Questions regarding age, marital status, education, affiliation with labor market and experiences with illness and health care

• ‘Control Preferences Scale’, a validated instrument that measured the degree of control an individual wants to assume when making decisions about medical treatment [22]a

• Validated 10-item personality measure (the Big Five Inventory-10; BFI-10) [23]a

• Subsequently, study participants were introduced to the case vignette set-up: “Imagine that You yourself attend the following sequence of encounters with your doctor …” . Participants were randomized into one of 30 different scenarios with an identical core structure though differing with respect to

∘ (a) information from the doctor about the PSA test (five variants ranging from no information or participation of patients in decision-making to participation of patients through SDM; see Fig. 1)

∘ (b) the decision to have a PSA or not

∘ (c) three outcome scenarios (a favorable outcome with no PCa, a fatal scenario with non treatable PCa, and an intermediate scenario with PCa detected but succesfully treated) with reference to scenarios reported in the health law literature [19, 21]b

• Following presentation of the case vignette, assessments were conducted concerning how satisfied the respondent would be with health care if he was the patient illustrated in the vignette and the likelihood that he would initiate a malpractice complaint. Items used for this assessment were modified from two previously validated instruments: The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, PSQ-18 [24] and the Consumer Complaint Intentions and Behavior questionnaire [25, 26]. Ratings were done on Likert scales (e.g. from very satisfied to very dissatisfied). Also participants were asked about their ability to identify with the patient in the scenario described in the vignette and their knowledge of the PSA test.

  1. aAll English language instruments had been independently forward-backward translated by skilled Danish and English speaking translators following the procedures recommended by Beaton and colleagues [27]
  2. bBy way of example, in one version of the vignette, the fictional doctor performed the PSA test without information (‘I will just take some routine tests’) and the patient described in the vignette later was successfully treated for PCa. In another version, the patient chose not to have a test after being slightly nudged in disfavor of the PSA test and was afterwards diagnosed with a treatable PCa. In yet another version, the patient reviewed an SDM DA, after dialogue with the doctor chose not to take the PSA test, and was later diagnosed with a non treatable PCa. We used a DA translated and adapted from Burford, Kirby, and Austoker by Bro and Borre [28, 29]. The DA was publicly available on the Danish Health Authorities’ website (‘PSA test for prostate cancer’, da. [PSA-test for prostatakræft]; www.sundhed.dk)
Back to article page

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

ISSN: 1472-6947

Contact us