ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire for other healthcare providers in Japan.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. 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.
- Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- 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
- Shared decision-making endorses intention to follow through treatment or vaccination recommendations: a multi-method survey study among older adults.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Validation and Clinical Application of the Japanese Version of the Patient-Reported Experience Measures for Intermediate Care Services: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Factors influencing shared decision-making in long-term care facilities.BMC geriatrics · 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
- Uncertainty among families of patients with cerebrovascular diseases in Japan: association with quality of life and background characteristics.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Article
- 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
- The relationship between evaluation of shared decision-making by pet owners and veterinarians and satisfaction with veterinary consultations.BMC veterinary research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, the number of older people with various health problems and difficulties in living is increasing. In order to practice patient-centered care for them, not only medical professionals but also multidisciplinary teams including care professionals and patients need to practice shared decision making (SDM) in the context of long-term care. For this reason, a measure of SDM in consultations with healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than physicians is needed. Therefore, this study aimed at adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9, SDM-Q-Doc) for consultations with HCPs other than physicians in Japan.
methodsA pair of SDM measures that can be used by HCPs other than physicians, "Care SDM-Questionnaire for care receivers (SDM-C-patient)" and "Care SDM-Questionnaire for care providers (SDM-C-provider)" were prepared based on the Japanese versions of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. The internal consistency and conceptual structure of these measures were tested by secondary analysis of data from 496 participants from a workshop on SDM for different HCPs. Measurement invariance were tested by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the patient (SDM-C-patient and SDM-Q-9) and provider (SDM-C-provider vs. SDM-Q-Doc) versions.
resultsBoth the Japanese SDM-C-patient and SDM-C-provider demonstrated high internal consistencies (Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.90 and McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.90 for both measures). CFA showed one-factor structures for both measures and original measures for physicians. Moreover, multigroup CFA showed configural and metric invariance between the novel care measures and original physician's measures.
conclusionsThus, the novel SDM measures for care providers in Japan as well as the original physician's measures could be used in training setting. As these measures were tested only in a training setting, their reliability and validity as new measures for care should be tested in a clinical setting in future.
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.