ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Psychometric Assessment of the Mandarin Version of the Decisional Conflict Scale with Pregnant Women Making Prenatal Test Decisions.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and application of a scale for older patients' perceived ageist behavior of medical staff in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Impact of a Training Program in Shared Decision-Making for Neurologists Treating People with Migraine.Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in People with Migraine in Spain.Patient preference and adherence · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWomen with high-risk pregnancies are often required to make choices about further prenatal testing for Down syndrome, but the decisional conflict they face is poorly understood. This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the Mandarin version of the decisional conflict scale (M-DCS) in Chinese women with high-risk pregnancies making choices about further prenatal testing for Down syndrome. PATIENTS AND
methodsA methodological study was conducted to determine the psychometric properties of the M-DCS, specially, reliability and content, construct, and concurrent validity. The convenience sample comprised 240 pregnant women with high risk for Down syndrome attending the out-patient clinic of the study hospital in Guangzhou, China.
resultsThe five-factor model of M-DCS was supported by confirmatory factor analysis with a satisfactory fit to the data (RMSEA <0.08, RMR <0.05, GFI, CFI, NFI, and IFI all >0.90, except AGFI=0.88 PNFI = 0.76). The internal consistency of the M-DCS was high, with Cronbach's α of 0.94.
conclusionThe reliability and validity (content, construct, and concurrent) of the M-DCS were all demonstrated as good. This instrument is an important tool for researchers and health-care providers working with women with high-risk pregnancies who need to make choices about further prenatal testing for Down syndrome.
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.