ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in People with Migraine in Spain.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emicizumab and shared medical decision in patients living with hemophilia A.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy · 2026Article
- Role of pharmacists in providing information on cancer genome medicine and patient decision making: Open-label randomized controlled study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Measures of healthcare decision-making ability in cognitive aging: a scoping review from the Advancing Reliable Measurement in Cognitive Aging and Decision-Making Ability (ARMCADA) research initiative.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Prenatal Screening of Chromosomal Anomalies Using Genome-Wide or Target Cell-Free DNA: Preferences and Satisfaction of Pregnant Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Decisional Conflict Regarding Disease-Modifying Treatment Choices Among Patients with Mid-Stage Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Impact of a Training Program in Shared Decision-Making for Neurologists Treating People with Migraine.Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to validate the Spanish version of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and analyze its psychometric properties in people with migraine. Patients and Methods: The DCS validation comprised two phases. First, a translation and cross-cultural adaptation following the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Practices: 1-preparation, 2-independent forward translation, 3-reconciliation, 4-back-translation, 5-harmonization, 6-clinical review, and 7-content validation in a group of migraine patients. Second, the analysis of the psychometric properties. The reliability or internal consistency of the DCS scale and subscales was assessed using Cronbach's α value. The item-subscale correlation was also evaluated. A floor and ceiling effects for DCS score was considered when at least 15% of respondents obtained DCS >90 (ceiling) or <10 (floor). The construct validity was studied through the correlation between the DCS subscales and by the correlation between the DCS and other questionnaires (Decision Self-Efficacy Scale [DSES] and 9-item Shared Decision-Making [SDM-Q-9]). Spearman's coefficients were estimated for the correlations. Results: The cross-cultural adaptation was conducted on 17 patients who completed the questionnaire in a mean of 2.4 ±1.1 minutes. Generally, more than 75% of them considered that DCS items were adequate, easy to understand, and relevant. The psychometric properties were evaluated in a sample of n=128 patients. Accordingly, the internal consistency of DCS was high, with a Cronbach's α of 0.97 for the scale and between 0.87 to 0.96 for subscales. Also, a slight floor effect was observed, with 24.2% of patients having DCS scores <10. The correlation between subscales exceeded Spearman's coefficient of 0.7. Whereas the correlation between the DCS and the other questionnaires was generally moderate (Spearman's coefficient >0.4). Conclusion: The Spanish version (Spain) of the DCS has very acceptable psychometric properties (reliability and construct validity) and good potential for assessing decisional conflicts among migraine 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.