Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison of SDMQ-Doc scores among the physicians in the intervention and control groups

From: Making shared decisions with older men selecting treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH): a pilot randomized trial

  

Intervention

Control

 

b Adjusted p-value (Holm-Bonferroni Method)

(N = 30)

(n = 30)

a p-value

Total SDMQ-Doc score, Mean (SD)

 

78.1 (14.1)

73.2 (19.8)

0.268

> 0.999

1.I made clear to my patient that a decision needs to be made

 

4.1 (0.7)

3.9 (0.9)

0.27

> 0.999

2.I wanted to know exactly from my patient how he/she wants to be involved in making the decision

 

3.8 (0.9)

3.4 (1.2)

0.153

> 0.999

3.I told my patient that there are different options for treating his/her medical condition

 

4.0 (1)

3.9 (1.1)

0.715

> 0.999

4.I precisely explained the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options to my patient

 

3.7 (1)

3.4 (1.3)

0.24

> 0.999

5.I helped my patient understand all the information

 

3.8 (0.9)

3.6 (1.3)

0.555

> 0.999

6.I asked my patient which treatment option he/she prefers

 

4.0 (1.1)

3.9 (1.2)

0.661

> 0.999

7.My patient and I thoroughly weighed the different treatment options

 

3.6 (0.9)

3.3 (1.3)

0.286

> 0.999

8.My patient and I selected a treatment option together

 

3.9 (1)

3.6 (1.2)

0.255

> 0.999

9.My patient and I reached an agreement on how to proceed

 

4.1 (0.7)

3.9 (0.8)

0.311

> 0.999

  1. Individual items are scored from 0 to 5 on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (″completely disagree″) to 5 (″completely agree″). The total raw score was multiplied by twenty and divided by nine to obtain a new composite score that ranged from 0 to 100 where 100 reflected the highest possible level of shared decision-making
  2. a Refers to the observed p-value before adjustment
  3. b Refers to the adjusted p-value using Holm-Bonferroni Method