Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34078373›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the IcanSDM measure - a cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals.

Anja Lindig, Pola Hahlweg, Eva Christalle, Anik Giguere, Martin Härter, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Isabelle Scholl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of evidence-informed practice in respiratory therapy: A cross-sectional survey.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anja LindigDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. a.lindig@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8675-496X
Pola HahlwegDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Eva ChristalleDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Anik GiguereLaval University Research Centre on Community-Based Primary Health Care (CERSSPL-UL), Québec City, QC, Canada.
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Olaf von dem KnesebeckCenter of Health Care Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 232160533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a key component of patient-centred care. To implement SDM in clinical practice and to evaluate its effects, it is helpful to know about HCPs' perception of SDM barriers. The measure IcanSDM was developed in Canada and assesses the perception of SDM barriers. To our knowledge, no equivalent measure exists in German. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and adapt the IcanSDM measure to be used by a German speaking population and evaluate its psychometric properties.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional psychometric study based on a secondary analysis of baseline data from a SDM implementation study. The original 8-item IcanSDM was translated into German using a team translation protocol. We assessed comprehensibility via cognitive interviews with n = 11 HCPs. Based on results of cognitive interviews, the translated IcanSDM version was revised. Two hundred forty-two HCPs filled out the measure. Psychometric analysis included acceptance (completion rate), item characteristics (response distribution, skewness, item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations), factorial structure (confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), and internal consistency (Cronbach's α).

resultsWe translated and adapted the German IcanSDM successfully except for item 8, which had to be revised after the cognitive interviews. Completion rate was 98%. Skewness of the items ranged between -.797 and 1.25, item difficulties ranged between 21.63 and 70.85, corrected item-total-correlations ranged between .200 and .475, inter-item correlations ranged between .005 and .412. Different models based on CFA results did not provide a valid factorial structure. Cronbach's α ranged between .563 and .651 for different factor models.

conclusionWe provide the first German measure for assessing perception of SDM barriers by HCPs. The German IcanSDM is a brief measure with good acceptance. However, we found unsatisfying psychometric properties, which were comparable to results of the original scale. In a next step, the IcanSDM should be further developed and modified and predictive validity should be evaluated.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesImplementationMeasurementMeasuring attitudes regarding shared decision-makingPerspective of healthcare professionalsPsychometricsShared-decision making

Identifiers

PMID34078373
PMCPMC8171052
OpenAlexW3165290707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.