The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions: The Satisfaction with Decision Scale
Abstract
Patient satisfaction measures have previously addressed satisfaction with medical care, satisfaction with providers, and satisfaction with outcomes, but not satisfaction with the health care decision itself. As patients become more involved in health care decisions, it is important to understand specific dynamics of the decision itself The Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) scale measures satisfaction with health care decisions. It was developed in the context of postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy decisions The six-item scale has excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). Discriminant validity, tested by performing principal- components analysis of items pooled from the SWD scale and two conceptually related measures, was good. Correlation of the SWD scale with measures of satisfaction with other aspects of the decision-making process showed the SWD scale was correlated most highly (0.64) with "decisional confidence," and least with "desire to participate in health care de cisions" and "satisfaction with provider " The SWD scale predicts decision certainty in this study. Use in an independent study showed that the SWD scale was correlated with the likelihood of patients' intentions to get a flu shot. Further investigation in relation to other health decisions will establish the utility of the SWD scale as an outcome measure Key words: patient satisfaction; medical decision making; decision support (Med Decis Making 1996;16:58-64)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gravel, K., Légaré, F., & Graham, I. D. (2006) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-16 · Cited by 755
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002 · Cited by 314
Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review
Peterson, E. B., Ostroff, J. S., DuHamel, K. N., D'Agostino, T. A., Hernandez, M., Canzona, M. R., & Bylund, C. L. (2016) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.09.034 · Cited by 308
Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life
Street, R. L., & Voigt, B. (1997) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9701700306 · Cited by 258
Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions
Duncan, E., Best, C., & Hagen, S. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007297.pub2 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., Padonu, G., & Talarczyk, G.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-64
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2017523852
- Cited by
- 611
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions: The Satisfaction with Decision Scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x9601600114
- The paper
- Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., Padonu, G., & Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions: The Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9601600114
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.