Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years

The Anniversary Review

Mirjam M. Garvelink, Laura Boland, Krystal Klein, Don Vu Nguyen, Matthew Menear, Hilary L. Bekker, Karen Eden, Annie LeBlanc, Annette M. O’Connor, Dawn Stacey, France Légaré

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87%), about treatment (n = 225, 55%), or testing (n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28%) and primary care (n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalMedical Decision Making
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Anniversaries and Special Events
Decision Making
PubMed
Conflict (Psychology)
Health
MEDLINE
Libraries
Primary Health Care
Emotions
Research Design
Language
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Decisional conflict scale
  • scoping review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Garvelink, M. M., Boland, L., Klein, K., Nguyen, D. V., Menear, M., Bekker, H. L., ... Légaré, F. (2019). Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19851345

Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years : The Anniversary Review. / Garvelink, Mirjam M.; Boland, Laura; Klein, Krystal; Nguyen, Don Vu; Menear, Matthew; Bekker, Hilary L.; Eden, Karen; LeBlanc, Annie; O’Connor, Annette M.; Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France.

In: Medical Decision Making, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Garvelink, MM, Boland, L, Klein, K, Nguyen, DV, Menear, M, Bekker, HL, Eden, K, LeBlanc, A, O’Connor, AM, Stacey, D & Légaré, F 2019, 'Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review', Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19851345
Garvelink MM, Boland L, Klein K, Nguyen DV, Menear M, Bekker HL et al. Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review. Medical Decision Making. 2019 Jan 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19851345
Garvelink, Mirjam M. ; Boland, Laura ; Klein, Krystal ; Nguyen, Don Vu ; Menear, Matthew ; Bekker, Hilary L. ; Eden, Karen ; LeBlanc, Annie ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Stacey, Dawn ; Légaré, France. / Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years : The Anniversary Review. In: Medical Decision Making. 2019.
@article{29468ab885a84994868e570a9ed8eada,
title = "Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review",
abstract = "Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76{\%}) used the original DCS, and 29 (7{\%}) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59{\%}). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87{\%}), about treatment (n = 225, 55{\%}), or testing (n = 91, 23{\%}). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28{\%}) and primary care (n = 82, 20{\%}). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.",
keywords = "Decisional conflict scale, scoping review",
author = "Garvelink, {Mirjam M.} and Laura Boland and Krystal Klein and Nguyen, {Don Vu} and Matthew Menear and Bekker, {Hilary L.} and Karen Eden and Annie LeBlanc and O’Connor, {Annette M.} and Dawn Stacey and France L{\'e}gar{\'e}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X19851345",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years

T2 - The Anniversary Review

AU - Garvelink, Mirjam M.

AU - Boland, Laura

AU - Klein, Krystal

AU - Nguyen, Don Vu

AU - Menear, Matthew

AU - Bekker, Hilary L.

AU - Eden, Karen

AU - LeBlanc, Annie

AU - O’Connor, Annette M.

AU - Stacey, Dawn

AU - Légaré, France

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87%), about treatment (n = 225, 55%), or testing (n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28%) and primary care (n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.

AB - Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87%), about treatment (n = 225, 55%), or testing (n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28%) and primary care (n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.

KW - Decisional conflict scale

KW - scoping review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066826911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066826911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X19851345

DO - 10.1177/0272989X19851345

M3 - Review article

JO - Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

JF - Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

SN - 0272-989X

ER -