Statistical Analyses
The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc scores (which were between 0 and 45) were transformed into percentages to make simple the results exposition (0% = no SDM behavior; 100% = ideal SDM behavior). This conversion into percentages is close to the other researches on this topic13, 20 Multiplication of the score by 20/9.
It was applied a detailed analysis using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Version 26 (IBM SPSS Inc.). Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median with a range or inter-quartile range (IQR). A Pearson test was conducted to evaluate the correlation among variables and a paired sample t test to compare two questionnares score. Therefore the statistical significance was defined as p <0.05

Results

Sixty nine patients took part in the study with mean age  of 29.7  ±  6.9 years (ranged between 18-68 years old). ( 48 patients- 18-30 years, 31-40 - 13 patients, 41-50 - 5 patients, 51-60 -2 patients and 1 patient - 60-70 years old ). Female represented 49.3%, male -50.7%. Fifthy four (78.3%) patients were diagnosed with esotropia and 15 (21.7%) with exotropia.
The mean SDM-Q-9 score among the patients was 78.42% (IQR = 75.6‒82.2%). The SDM-Q-9 score ranged between 100‒90% was not assigned by any patient, 90‒80% was given by 35 (50.7%) patients and 80-70% by 29 (42%) patients, and 70‒60% by 5 (7.2%) patients. All the SDM-Q-9 had an average score of 3.9. Table 1.
Mean SDM-Q-Doc score was 86.7% (IQR 84.4–88.9%). Six questionnaires (8.7%) had a score ranging between 100‒90%, and the remaining (91.3%) a score ranging between 90-80%. All SDM-Q-Doc issues showed an average score of 4.3. Table 1
The SDM-Q-Doc values were systematically higher than the SDM-Q-9 values (average difference 6.7%).
The postoperative patient satisfaction was reated as excellent by 12 (17.4%) patients, good by 27 (39.1%) , fair by 24 (34.8%) and poor by 6 patients (8.7%). Figure 1
A paired-sample t-test was carried out to establish the differences among SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-DOC scores of the patient and doctor. The test revealed a significant difference between the total score for SDM-Q-9 (M=78.4; SD=4.82) and for SDM-Doc (M=86.8; SD =2.23 at t (68) 13.7, p < .001) as well as for first item score, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth items scores. A significant difference between the general decision of patients and practitioners on other points was not established. Table 2
Pearson’s test revealed a low negative correlation between patient’s gender and SDMQ-9 score r (68)= - .12, p .31 and patient’s age and SDM-Q-9 score r (68)= - .23, p .61. Females and yang patients reported a lower SDM-Q-9 score. Table 3. Pearson test revealed a positive significant correlation between SDM-Q-9 score and patient satisfaction t (69)= .28, p .02.
In 15 (21.4%) cases 2 consultations were required before the shared decision was reached, in 27 (38.6%) cases -3, in 25 (35.7%) cases -4 and in 2 (2.9%) cases -5 consultations. We also reveald a positive significant correlation between patient age and number of consultations t (69)= .45, p = .00.