ArticleJMA journal2020
Psychometric Evaluation of the Japanese 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Its Association with Decision Conflict and Patient Factors in Japanese Primary Care.
Article in JMA journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- The impact of shared decision-making on quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus practice: findings from the TRUMPFrontiers in immunology · 2026Observational
- Experiences of Decision-Making in Healthcare and Online Health Information-Seeking Among Older Adults and People with Long-Term Disease: Online Survey Study.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in healthcare: development and assessment of the translated Finnish version of the SDM-Q-9.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2025Article
- Association of physicians' Big Five personality traits with shared decision-making in patients with SLE.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Psychometric Validation and Reliability of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Psychometric properties of the Danish SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in patients with pelvic floor disorders and low back pain: item response theory modelling.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Response process validity of the 9-item shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a cognitive interview study with patients with cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Barriers and Stimulus in Shared Decision Making Among Aesthetic Dermatologists in China: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Article
- Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group on Goals-of-Care and Family/Surrogate Decision-Maker Data.Neurocritical care · 2023Article
- Shared decision-making in physiotherapy: a cross-sectional study of patient involvement factors and issues in Japan.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group on Goals-of-care and Family/Surrogate Decision-Maker Data.Research square · 2023Article
- Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Insights from using an outcomes measurement properties search filter and conducting citation searches to locate psychometric articles of tools used to measure context attributes.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- The Practice of Shared Decision-Making Among Physiotherapists and Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Validation of the Novel Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Team Building in Patient-Centered Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Shared decision making between patients with Fabry disease and physicians in Japan: An online survey.Molecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2022Article
- Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The relationship between evaluation of shared decision-making by pet owners and veterinarians and satisfaction with veterinary consultations.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Does the SDMQ-9 Predict Changes in HbA1c Levels? An Ecuadorian Cohort.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to verify the internal consistency and validity of the Japanese version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and investigate the association among patient factors, shared decision-making experienced by patients, and patients' decision conflict during the treatment decision process in primary outpatient settings in Japan.
methodsPatients who visited a primary care outpatient unit for the first time and completed the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) immediately after consultation were included. The internal consistency of SDM-Q-9 was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to investigate structural construct validity. The relationship among patient-perceived experiences of shared decision-making, decision conflict, and patient factors was evaluated using correlation analysis.
resultsA total of 131 patients with chronic diseases (55.0% females, 28.2% aged ≥ 70 years) were included in this analysis. Cronbach's alpha for the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 was 0.917, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 had a one-factor structure. Spearman's rank correlation analysis indicated that the correlation between SDM-Q-9 and DCS was -0.577 (
conclusionsWe confirmed that the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 was both reliable and valid for use in Japanese primary care settings. In addition, we found a clear association between shared decision-making and decisional conflict of patients.
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.