Suppr超能文献

决策控制工具评估自愿同意。

The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (VAM)

Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (RFI)

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2011 Sep-Oct;31(5):730-41. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11398666. Epub 2011 Mar 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The decision to participate in a research intervention or to undergo medical treatment should be both informed and voluntary.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to develop an instrument to measure the perceived voluntariness of parents making decisions for their seriously ill children.

METHODS

A total of 219 parents completed questionnaires within 10 days of making such a decision at a large, urban tertiary care hospital for children. Parents were presented with an experimental form of the Decision Making Control Instrument (DMCI), a measure of the perception of voluntariness. Data obtained from the 28-item form were analyzed using a combination of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic techniques.

RESULTS

The 28 items were reduced to 9 items representing 3 oblique dimensions: Self-Control, Absence of Control, and Others' Control. The hypothesis that the 3-factor covariance structure of our model was consistent with that of the data was supported. Internal consistency for the scale as a whole was high (0.83); internal consistency for the subscales ranged from 0.68 to 0.87. DMCI scores were associated with measures of affect, trust, and decision self-efficacy, supporting the construct validity of the new instrument.

CONCLUSION

The DMCI is an important new tool that can be used to inform our understanding of the voluntariness of treatment and research decisions in medical settings.

摘要

背景

参与研究干预或接受医疗的决定应该是知情和自愿的。

目的

本研究旨在开发一种工具,以衡量父母为重病子女做出决策时的自愿感。

方法

在一家大型城市三级儿童护理医院,共有 219 名父母在做出此类决定后的 10 天内完成了调查问卷。父母们接受了决策控制工具(DMCI)的实验形式,这是衡量自愿感的一种衡量标准。使用探索性和验证性因子分析技术的组合分析了 28 项表单获得的数据。

结果

28 个项目减少到 9 个项目,代表 3 个斜交维度:自我控制、缺乏控制和他人控制。我们模型的 3 因素协方差结构与数据一致的假设得到了支持。整个量表的内部一致性很高(0.83);子量表的内部一致性范围为 0.68 至 0.87。DMCI 评分与情感、信任和决策自我效能感的衡量标准相关,支持了新工具的结构有效性。

结论

DMCI 是一种重要的新工具,可以帮助我们了解医疗环境中治疗和研究决策的自愿性。

相似文献

1
The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent.
Med Decis Making. 2011 Sep-Oct;31(5):730-41. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11398666. Epub 2011 Mar 14.
2
Factors related to voluntary parental decision-making in pediatric oncology.
Pediatrics. 2012 May;129(5):903-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-3056. Epub 2012 Apr 16.
6
The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):82-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2304.
8
Measuring voluntariness of consent to research: an instrument review.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015 Apr;10(2):121-31. doi: 10.1177/1556264615571552. Epub 2015 Feb 20.
10
Challenges in measuring a new construct: perception of voluntariness for research and treatment decision making.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009 Sep;4(3):21-31. doi: 10.1525/jer.2009.4.3.21.

引用本文的文献

3
Social Determinants of Health and Informed Consent Comprehension for Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Dec 1;6(12):e2346858. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46858.
5
Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list.
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2020 Dec 29;4(1):e000847. doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000847. eCollection 2020.
9
Patient reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials: A systematic review.
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 27;13(6):e0199775. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199775. eCollection 2018.
10
Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in prepubertal girls and young women: an analysis of parents' and patients' decision-making.
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Apr;35(4):593-600. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1123-7. Epub 2018 Feb 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Sample Size in Factor Analysis: The Role of Model Error.
Multivariate Behav Res. 2001 Oct 1;36(4):611-37. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06.
3
Challenges in measuring a new construct: perception of voluntariness for research and treatment decision making.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009 Sep;4(3):21-31. doi: 10.1525/jer.2009.4.3.21.
4
Voluntariness of consent to research: a conceptual model.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2009 Jan-Feb;39(1):30-9. doi: 10.1353/hcr.0.0103.
5
Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review.
Med Care. 2002 Sep;40(9 Suppl):V69-80. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000023958.28108.9C.
6
Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.
Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Jul;47(3):245-55. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(01)00218-x.
7
Prenatal HIV-antibody testing and the meaning of consent.
AIDS Public Policy J. 1994 Fall;9(3):151-9.
8
Ethical issues in informed consent with substance abusers.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999 Apr;67(2):186-93. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.67.2.186.
9
Two scales for measuring patients' perceptions for coercion during mental hospital admission.
Behav Sci Law. 1993 Summer;11(3):307-21. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370110308.
10
Confirmatory factor analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Mar;36(3):339-43. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00025-4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验