Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

Objective: To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. Methods: Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects. Results: The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect. Practice implications: When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

Automated summary

This study compared CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires in assessing patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. The results showed that overall, CollaboRATE scores were higher than SDM-Q-9 scores, and the correlation between the two was moderate. When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, the benefits and limitations of each metric should be considered.