• 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

决策冲突量表的验证

Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

作者信息

O'Connor A M

机构信息

University of Ottawa Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.

DOI:10.1177/0272989X9501500105
PMID:7898294
Abstract

The study objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a decisional conflict scale (DCS) that elicits: 1) health-care consumers' uncertainty in making a health-related decision; 2) the factors contributing to the uncertainty; and 3) health-care consumers' perceived effective decision making. The DCS was developed in response to the lack of instruments available to evaluate health-care-consumer decision aids and to tailor decision-supporting interventions to particular consumer needs. The scale was evaluated with 909 individuals deciding about influenza immunization or breast cancer screening. A subsample of respondents was retested two weeks later. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. The DCS discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who had strong intentions either to accept or to decline invitations to receive influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and those whose intentions were uncertain. The scale also discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who accepted or rejected immunization and those who delayed their decisions to be immunized. There was a weak inverse correlation (r = -0.16, p < 0.05) between the DCS and knowledge test scores. The psychometric properties of the scale are acceptable. It is feasible and easy to administer. Evaluations of responsiveness to change and validation with more difficult decisions are warranted.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估一种决策冲突量表(DCS)的心理测量特性,该量表能够引出:1)医疗保健消费者在做出与健康相关决策时的不确定性;2)导致不确定性的因素;以及3)医疗保健消费者感知到的有效决策。DCS的开发是为了应对缺乏可用于评估医疗保健消费者决策辅助工具以及根据特定消费者需求定制决策支持干预措施的工具这一情况。该量表对909名正在决定是否接种流感疫苗或进行乳腺癌筛查的个体进行了评估。两周后对部分受访者进行了重新测试。重测信度系数为0.81。内部一致性系数在0.78至0.92之间。DCS在那些强烈打算接受或拒绝接种流感疫苗或进行乳腺癌筛查邀请的人与那些意图不确定的人之间有显著差异(p < 0.0002)。该量表在接受或拒绝免疫接种的人与那些推迟免疫接种决定的人之间也有显著差异(p < 0.0002)。DCS与知识测试分数之间存在微弱的负相关(r = -0.16,p < 0.05)。该量表的心理测量特性是可接受的。它可行且易于实施。有必要对该量表对变化的反应性进行评估,并对更复杂的决策进行效度验证。

相似文献

1
Validation of a decisional conflict scale.决策冲突量表的验证
Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.
2
Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the statement format Decisional Conflict Scale for Mandarin version.中文简体版决策冲突量表的跨文化调适与心理计量评估。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Nov 21;19(1):873. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4717-6.
3
An evaluation of the Decisional Conflict Scale for measuring the quality of end-of-life decision making.用于评估临终决策质量的决策冲突量表的评价
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Jun;61(3):397-404. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.003. Epub 2005 Jun 20.
4
Validation of the Decisional Conflict Scale for Evaluating Advance Care Decision Conflict in Community-dwelling Older Adults.评估社区居住老年人预先医疗决策冲突的决策冲突量表的验证。
Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2017 Dec;11(4):297-303. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2017.11.004. Epub 2017 Dec 6.
5
Validity of a low literacy version of the Decisional Conflict Scale.简易版决策冲突量表的有效性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Dec;85(3):521-4. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.012. Epub 2011 Feb 5.
6
A Psychometric Validation of the Decisional Conflict Scale in Italian Cancer Patients Scheduled for Insertion of Central Venous Access Devices.意大利癌症患者中央静脉置管前决策冲突量表的心理测量学验证。
Anticancer Res. 2020 Oct;40(10):5583-5592. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.14571.
7
Item response theory analysis and properties of decisional conflict scales: findings from two multi-site trials of men with localized prostate cancer.项目反应理论分析和决策冲突量表的特性:来自两个局部前列腺癌男性多中心试验的结果。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0853-5.
8
Validation of SURE, a four-item clinical checklist for detecting decisional conflict in patients.SURE的验证,一种用于检测患者决策冲突的四项临床检查表。
Med Decis Making. 2014 Jan;34(1):54-62. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13491463. Epub 2013 Jun 17.
9
The decisional conflict scale: further validation in two samples of Dutch oncology patients.决策冲突量表:在两组荷兰肿瘤患者样本中的进一步验证
Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Dec 1;45(3):187-93. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(01)00120-3.
10
Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer.决策辅助工具中患者偏好测量是否能改善决策冲突?一项针对前列腺癌男性的随机试验。
Patient. 2017 Dec;10(6):785-798. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0255-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Supporting decision making for individuals living with dementia and their care partners with knowledge translation: An umbrella review.通过知识转化为痴呆症患者及其护理伙伴的决策提供支持:一项伞状综述。
Alzheimers Dement. 2025 Sep;21(9):e70636. doi: 10.1002/alz.70636.
2
Development of a measurement of doctor-patient communication quality scale.医患沟通质量量表测量方法的研制。
Front Public Health. 2025 Aug 11;13:1606403. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1606403. eCollection 2025.
3
Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial of fertiShare, a brief eLearning course to increase fertility staff performance when sharing bad news with their patients - a protocol.
一项关于fertiShare的多中心实用随机对照可行性试验,fertiShare是一门简短的电子学习课程,旨在提高生育领域工作人员在向患者传达坏消息时的表现——一项方案。
BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 25;15(8):e101269. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101269.
4
Identification and synthesis of end-of-life decision-making measures: a scoping review.临终决策措施的识别与综合:一项范围综述
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Jul 31;12:1540486. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1540486. eCollection 2025.
5
Current Status and Influencing Factors of Decisional Conflict in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.接受全身治疗的肺癌患者决策冲突的现状及影响因素:一项横断面分析
Thorac Cancer. 2025 Aug;16(16):e70150. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.70150.
6
Development and pilot testing of a personalised decision aid for decision-making regarding fertility preservation in young female patients with cancer: a study protocol.针对年轻癌症女性患者生育力保存决策的个性化决策辅助工具的开发与预试验:一项研究方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 12;15(8):e090759. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090759.
7
Evaluating the feasibility of study methods for a future trial-based economic evaluation of a multistage shared decision-making program for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled pilot study.评估未来一项针对2型糖尿病多阶段共享决策项目基于试验的经济评估研究方法的可行性:一项整群随机对照试验性研究方案
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 5;20(8):e0300944. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300944. eCollection 2025.
8
From Burden to Empowerment. Patient-Reported Influencing Factors on Participation in Shared Decision Making in Oncology, a Meta-Study.从负担到赋权:患者报告的肿瘤学共同决策参与影响因素的元研究
Psychooncology. 2025 Jul;34(7):e70218. doi: 10.1002/pon.70218.
9
A randomized controlled trial to evaluate innovative decision support in the context of fall prevention.一项评估预防跌倒背景下创新决策支持的随机对照试验。
NPJ Digit Med. 2025 Jul 11;8(1):431. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01822-9.
10
Co-designing a shared digital decision aid for HPV vaccination in French general practice.共同设计一款用于法国全科医疗中HPV疫苗接种的共享数字决策辅助工具。
BMC Prim Care. 2025 Jul 2;26(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s12875-025-02910-1.