Instruments to assess the perception of physicians in the decision-making process of specific clinical encounters: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
The measurement of processes and outcomes that reflect the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters is an important area of research to pursue. A systematic review was conducted to identify instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.


METHODS
For every year available up until April 2007, PubMed, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts were searched for original studies in English or French. Reference lists from retrieved studies were also consulted. Studies were included if they reported a self-administered instrument evaluating physicians' perceptions of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters, contained sufficient description to permit critical appraisal and presented quantitative results based on administering the instrument. Two individuals independently assessed the eligibility of the instruments and abstracted information on their conceptual underpinnings, main evaluation domain, development, format, reliability, validity and responsiveness. They also assessed the quality of the studies that reported on the development of the instruments with a modified version of STARD.


RESULTS
Out of 3431 records identified and screened for evaluation, 26 potentially relevant instruments were assessed; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Five instruments were published before 1995. Among those published after 1995, five offered a corresponding patient version. Overall, the main evaluation domains were: satisfaction with the clinical encounter (n = 2), mutual understanding between health professional and patient (n = 2), mental workload (n = 1), frustration with the clinical encounter (n = 1), nurse-physician collaboration (n = 1), perceptions of communication competence (n = 2), degree of comfort with a decision (n = 1) and information on medication (n = 1). For most instruments (n = 10), some reliability and validity criteria were reported in French or English. Overall, the mean number of items on the modified version of STARD was 12.4 (range: 2 to 18).


CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review provides a critical appraisal and repository of instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters. More research is needed to pursue the validation of the existing instruments and the development of patient versions. This will help researchers capture the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.
Légaré
France
F
Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec, Canada. france.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca
Moher
David
D
Elwyn
Glyn
G
LeBlanc
Annie
A
Gravel
Karine
K
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003142:Communication; D003657:Decision Making; D017050:Episode of Care; D006801:Humans; D008487:Medical History Taking; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012655:Self-Evaluation Programs