• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

测试共享决策问卷-医生版(SDM-Q-Doc)在意大利真实精神科临床样本中的心理计量学特性。

Testing psychometric properties of Shared Decision Making Questionnaire - Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in an Italian real-world psychiatric clinical sample.

机构信息

Psychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Italy.

Psychiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Italy - Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Italy.

出版信息

Riv Psichiatr. 2023 Jul-Aug;58(4):167-174. doi: 10.1708/4064.40479.

DOI:10.1708/4064.40479
PMID:37409434
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) is the main tool assessing SDM relationship between patient and physician using the clinician viewpoint. It is reliable in all medical fields, and the validation of its Italian version was still missing. Our aim was to validate the Italian version of the SDM-Q-Doc in a clinical sample of patients suffering from severe mental illness.

METHODS

We approached 369 patients affected by major psychiatric disorders (including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, affective disorders and eating disorders) in a real-world outpatient clinical setting. We run the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the SDM-Q-Doc structure. We calculated the correlations between the SDM-Q-Doc and the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale, used as comparing test, and McDonald ω coefficient to measure convergent validity and internal consistency respectively.

RESULTS

We reached a response rate of 93.2% (344 final participants). The CFA showed a very good fit compared of the Italian version of SDM-Q-Doc (χ2/df=3.2, CFI=.99, TLI=.99, RMSEA=.08, SRMR=.04). We found several correlations between the SDM-Q-Doc and OPTION scale supporting a robust SDM-Q-Doc construct validity, while internal consistency of the scale was McDonald ω coefficient .92. Further, inter-item correlations ranged from .390 to .703, with a mean of .556.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the suitability of the Italian version of SDM-Q-Doc, with good reliability and soundness even when compared to other languages validated versions and to OPTION scale. SDM-Q-Doc represents an easy-to-use physician-centered measure to assess patients' involvement in medical decision-making, well performing in the Italian-speaking population.

摘要

目的

共享决策问卷-医师版(SDM-Q-Doc)是评估医患之间共享决策关系的主要工具,采用临床医生的观点。它在所有医学领域都是可靠的,但其意大利语版本的验证仍然缺失。我们的目的是在患有严重精神疾病的患者的临床样本中验证 SDM-Q-Doc 的意大利语版本。

方法

我们在真实的门诊临床环境中接触了 369 名患有主要精神障碍(包括精神分裂症谱系障碍、情感障碍和饮食障碍)的患者。我们进行了验证性因素分析(CFA)来测试 SDM-Q-Doc 的结构。我们计算了 SDM-Q-Doc 与用作比较测试的观察患者参与度量表(OPTION)之间的相关性,并分别使用 McDonald ω 系数测量收敛效度和内部一致性。

结果

我们达到了 93.2%的回复率(344 名最终参与者)。与 SDM-Q-Doc 的意大利语版本相比,CFA 显示出非常好的拟合度(χ2/df=3.2,CFI=.99,TLI=.99,RMSEA=.08,SRMR=.04)。我们发现 SDM-Q-Doc 与 OPTION 量表之间存在多种相关性,支持 SDM-Q-Doc 具有强大的结构有效性,而该量表的内部一致性为 McDonald ω 系数.92。此外,各项目之间的相关性范围为.390 至.703,平均值为.556。

结论

这项研究证实了 SDM-Q-Doc 的意大利语版本的适用性,具有良好的可靠性和稳健性,即使与其他语言验证版本和 OPTION 量表相比也是如此。SDM-Q-Doc 是一种易于使用的以医生为中心的衡量标准,用于评估患者在医疗决策中的参与度,在讲意大利语的人群中表现良好。

相似文献

1
Testing psychometric properties of Shared Decision Making Questionnaire - Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in an Italian real-world psychiatric clinical sample.测试共享决策问卷-医生版(SDM-Q-Doc)在意大利真实精神科临床样本中的心理计量学特性。
Riv Psichiatr. 2023 Jul-Aug;58(4):167-174. doi: 10.1708/4064.40479.
2
Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): Validation of the Italian Version in a Large Psychiatric Clinical Sample.9项共同决策问卷(SDM-Q-9)的心理测量特性:意大利语版本在大型精神科临床样本中的验证
Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2022 Aug;19(4):264-271. doi: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20220408.
3
Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care.9项共同决策问卷(SDM-Q-9)和共同决策问卷-医生版(SDM-Q-Doc)在初级和二级医疗保健中的荷兰语翻译及心理测量测试
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 7;10(7):e0132158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132158. eCollection 2015.
4
Association between physicians' and patients' perspectives of shared decision making in primary care settings in Japan: The impact of environmental factors.日本初级保健环境中医生和患者对共同决策的看法之间的关联:环境因素的影响。
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 10;16(2):e0246518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246518. eCollection 2021.
5
Adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire for other healthcare providers in Japan.将9项共同决策调查问卷的患者版和医生版改编用于日本的其他医疗服务提供者。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Nov 11;21(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01683-8.
6
Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire--physician version (SDM-Q-Doc).共享决策问卷-医师版(SDM-Q-Doc)的制定和心理测量特性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):284-90. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr 3.
7
Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician's perspective in oncology practice.验证 SDM-Q-Doc 问卷以衡量肿瘤学实践中医生的共享决策观点。
Clin Transl Oncol. 2017 Nov;19(11):1312-1319. doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1671-9. Epub 2017 May 11.
8
Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity.比较九项共享决策问卷与 OPTION 量表——尝试建立聚合效度。
Health Expect. 2015 Feb;18(1):137-50. doi: 10.1111/hex.12022. Epub 2012 Nov 26.
9
Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting.验证肿瘤学环境中患者版和医生版共同决策问卷
Health Promot Perspect. 2019 May 25;9(2):105-114. doi: 10.15171/hpp.2019.15. eCollection 2019.
10
Validation of the Spanish version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire.9项共同决策问卷西班牙语版本的验证
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2143-53. doi: 10.1111/hex.12183. Epub 2014 Mar 5.