ArticleBMC health services research2019
Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the statement format Decisional Conflict Scale for Mandarin version.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of a Patient Decision Aid Developed for Chinese Primary Angle Closure Patients: A Randomized Control Trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of a Short-Term Advance Care Planning Intervention (VOICE) for Dialysis Patients with ESRD: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Trial
- eHealth literacy and decisional conflict in patients with coronary heart disease: chain mediation of cyberchondria and psychological inflexibility and a latent profile analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Associations between fear of medical imaging radiation, risk perception, and patient decisional conflict: evidence from variable-centered and person-centered analyses.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- Navigating decisional conflict: laser peripheral iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma prevention.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Validation of a checklist to facilitate serious illness conversations in adult emergency in China: a single-centre pilot study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring Predictors of HPV Vaccination Decisions: A Stage-Based Study on Chinese Parents of Girls.Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe statement format of the Decisional Conflict Scale (sf-DCS) is designed and widely used to assess patients' state of uncertainty during health related decision making. As yet no Mandarin version of the sf-DCS has been produced. This study aims to produce the first Mandarin version of the sf-DCS and test its validity and reliability in mainland China.
methodsThe translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original English version of the sf-DCS into Mandarin was carried out in accordance with previously published guidelines. The psychometric properties of sf-DCS were assessed in two hypothesized decision-making contexts through online surveys.
resultsIn the online survey designed to test scale validity and reliability, 437 people responded to the influenza immunization survey and 238 responded to the breast cancer screening survey. The results confirm that the Mandarin version of sf-DCS has good criteria validity and the exploratory factor analysis suggested a fitted revised five factors model by removing three items. Respondents who were "unsure" about their decisions/intentions, had read less information, and reported lower self-perceived prior knowledge level scored higher on sf-DCS. The Cronbach's alpha for the sf-DCS total score was 0.963 and that for each subscale ranged from 0.784 to 0.937 in both decision making contexts, and the test-retest correlation coefficient was 0.528.
conclusionsThe Mandarin version of sf-DCS has good criteria validity and its internal consistency is satisfactory. Our analysis suggests a refinement of the original sf-DCS's factor structure is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.