ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in Chinese Young Women Making HPV Vaccination 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reducing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy From a Decisional Conflict Model: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is a well-known scale for measuring personal decisional conflict, particularly when a person feels uninformed about the risks/benefits of choices, is unclear about personal values, and feels unsupported in making a choice. Higher scores of DCS indicate higher decisional conflict. In the present study, we aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the DCS among Chinese young women making HPV vaccination decisions. Methods: A total of 107 HPV-unvaccinated Chinese women aged 18-26 completed the survey assessing decisional conflict, knowledge and decision of HPV vaccination. Factorial validity, construct validity, and reliability of the DCS were examined. Results: The mean score of the DCS-16 was 41.5 (SD=20.0). Principal component analysis extracted a 3-factor model of DCS containing 13 items (DCS-13), but both the original DCS-16 and extracted DCS-13 showed poor factorial validity. An alternative DCS-10 revealed a good fit to the data with Cronbach's alpha 0.86. Some subscales of the three versions of DCS showed inconsistent correlation. Conclusion: The DCS-10 demonstrated good model fit to the data. By using the DCS-10 total score rather than sub-scores to measure Chinese young women's HPV vaccination decisional conflict a more valid assessment can be obtained.
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.