The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS)

Slade, Mike, Jordan, Harriet, Clarke, Eleanor, Williams, Paul, Kaliniecka, Helena, Arnold, Katrin, Fiorillo, Andrea, Giacco, Domenico, Luciano, Mario, Égerházi, Anikó, Nagy, Marietta, Krogsgaard Bording, Malene, Østermark Sørensen, Helle, Rössler, Wulf, Kawohl, Wolfram, Puschner, Bernd and The CEDAR Study Group 2014. The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS). BMC Health Services Research 14 (1) , 323. 10.1186/1472-6963-14-323

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) – with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) – for use in mental health services. Methods An English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich. Results After appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff. Conclusions CDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments. Trial registration ISRCTN75841675.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Schools > Medicine
Publisher:	BioMed Central
Date of Acceptance:	15 April 2014
Last Modified:	12 May 2025 14:16
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/177657

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item