Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale to investigate the value of pharmacists’ information: a before and after study

Kawaguchi, Takashi; Azuma, Keisuke; Yamaguchi, Takuhiro; Soeda, Hiroshi; Sekine, Yusuke; Koinuma, Masayoshi; Takeuchi, Hirohito; Akashi, Takao; Unezaki, Sakae

doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-50

Cited by 40 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The decisional conflict was calculated from the total scores, which were calculated from the five subscales: uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision making reports, including patients who underwent chemotherapy for cancer [7] and treatment for asthma [10]. The total scores of DCS were lower than 25 at any of the three time points and were considered to be feasible for invasive treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Japanese translated version of the original DCS (J-DCS) with the statement format composed of 16item five-response categories, was developed and validated by Kawaguchi and colleagues. [7] The DCS was divided into five subscales, namely uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision making, and is composed of 16 items that use a five-point Likert-type response: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Decisional conflict was calculated from calculating the total scores obtained on these 16 items.…”

Section: Measurements Of Decisional Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decisional conflict scale for elective thoracic surgery

Kaneda

Nakano

Murakawa

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The relationship between patients and physicians in medical decision-making has changed in recent times. Although patients understand essential medical information, the estimation of risk/benefit of planned treatments is a difficult decision-making process for them. The research of decisional conflict targeted decision at surgery has been rarely performed. We prospectively researched decisional conflict using a questionnaire survey for patients with elective thoracic surgery and retrospectively reviewed the quantified and subcategorized data to examine clinical factors related with the decisional conflict scale (DCS) and the quality of life (QOL).Methods For patients with thoracic surgery, self-administered questionnaire surveys regarding decisional conflict and QOL were conducted at three time points: the day before surgery, at discharge, and at 3 months after surgery. The questionnaire survey of DCS is composed of five categories (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision making) that use a five-point Likert-type response. QOL was measured in the Japanese version of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory.Results The questionnaire surveys were performed from April 2017 to March 2019. Eighty six patients were analyzed in this study. The total DCS scores did not differ among pre-surgery, post-surgery, and 3 months after surgery (21.8, 20.3, 19.2, respectively; P = 0.48). The effective decision subscores significantly decreased after surgery (19.2, 13.4, 13.7, p = 0.041). The pain scores at discharge were significantly higher in patients who underwent thoracotomy surgeries than VATS (6.5 vs. 4.0, p = 0.013). However, the DCS scores did not show any significant difference between the surgical approaches at discharge (thoracotomy: 12.5, VATS: 13.5, p = 0.86) and at 3 months after surgery (thoracotomy: 22.5, VATS: 12.5, p = 0.11). The effective decision subscores did not show significance to post-operative complications at post-surgery before discharge and at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.94 and p = 0.40). At 3 months after surgery, the most QOL scores were significantly related to the total scores of DCS.Conclusions Patient’s own experience of thoracic surgery and post-operative management may decrease patient dissatisfaction. The findings suggest that decisional support for patients to organize their concrete perioperative management would ameliorate their satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurements Of Decisional Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decisional conflict scale for elective thoracic surgery

Kaneda

Nakano

Murakawa

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(14) Down sendromu taramalarına katılan gebelere yapılan başka bir çalışmada kadınların %70'inin Down Sendromu tarama testlerini duyduğu ve yaklaşık %70'nin bu konu ile ilgili bilgiyi arkadaşlarından, akrabalarından ve internetten aldıkları belirtilmiştir. (25) (20,21) KVÇÖ'nin orijinalinde bulunan 5 alt kategori, bu çalışmada dört alt kategoride sınıflanmıştır. Ölçeğin Çince versiyonunda ise alt kategoriler üç alt grupta toplanmıştır.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Adaptation of the Decisional Conflict Scale and Sure Tool into Turkish Society

Yeşilçınar¹,

Güvenç²,

Keskin³

2019

HEAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bu araştırma, tanı veya tedavi sürecinde karar vermede çatışma yaşama durumunu ölçmek amacıyla kullanılan "Karar Vermede Çatışma Ölçeği"nin ve "Karardan Emin Olma Ölçeği"nin Türk toplumuna uyarlanması, geçerlilik ve güvenirliğinin test edilmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Metodolojik tipteki bu araştırmanın verileri Mayıs-Ağustos 2017 tarihleri arasında toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini Ankara ilindeki bir Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesine antenatal bakım almak için başvuran ve araştırmaya katılmaya istekli 196 gebe örneklem kapsamına alınmıştır. Prenatal tanı ya da tarama testi yaptıracak olan kadınlarla ilk karşılaşmada gebelerin sosyo-demografik, obstetrik ve karar vermeye yönelik özelliklerini belirleyen "Sosyo-demografik Özellikler Veri Toplama Formu", araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturulan "Prenatal Tarama Testlerine Yönelik Bilgi Formu", "Karar Vermede Çatışma Ölçeği (KVÇÖ)" ve "Karardan Emin Olma Ölçeği (KEOÖ)" kullanılarak veri toplanmıştır. Bir sonraki antenatal vizitte ulaşılabilen gebe kadınlara "Karar Vermede Çatışma Ölçeği" ve "Karardan Emin Olma Ölçeği" tekrar uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırmaya katılan gebelerin yaş ortalamaları 29.20±5.3 olarak bulunmuştur. Gebelerin %80.2'si prenatal tarama testlerini yaptırmak istediğini ve %65.0'ı bu testleri bebeğinin sağlık durumu hakkında bilgi almak için yaptırdığını belirtmiştir. KVÇÖ'nin güvenirliliğini değerlendirmek için hesaplanmış cronbach alpha değeri 0.94, re-test cronbach alpha değeri 0.94 olarak saptanmıştır. Yapılan faktör analizi sonucunda KVÇÖ'nin maddelerinin ölçeğin orijinalinden farklı olarak dört alt faktörde toplandığı bulunmuştur. KEOÖ'nin cronbach alpha değeri 0.84, re-test cronbach alpha değeri 0.79 olarak bulunmuştur. Yapılan faktör analizi sonucunda KEOÖ'nin maddelerinin ölçeğin orijinalinden farklı olarak tek alt faktörde toplandığı bulunmuştur. Her iki ölçek için maddelerin tamamının faktör yükleri 0.30'un üzerinde

show abstract

“…It may be worthwhile to mention that previous studies were conducted on different ethnicity and racial backgrounds and it was found that women preferred to consume tamoxifen if there in the high risk group ( 5 ). Perhaps, that is the main reason why the stage of the disease should have been considered in the patients involved in the present study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%