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.