↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale to investigate the value of pharmacists’ information: a before and after study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale to investigate the value of pharmacists’ information: a before and after study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-50
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Kawaguchi, Kanako Azuma, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Hiroshi Soeda, Yusuke Sekine, Masayoshi Koinuma, Hironori Takeuchi, Takao Akashi, Sakae Unezaki

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The information provided in patient-centered care and shared decision-making influences patients' concerns and adherence to treatment. In the decision-making process, patients experience decisional conflict. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is a 16-item, self-administered questionnaire consisting of 5 subscales developed to assess patients' decisional conflict. This study aimed to develop the Japanese version of the DCS and to clarify the influence of the information provided by pharmacists' on decisional conflict among patients with cancer. METHODS: We developed the Japanese version of the DCS by using the forward-backward translation method. One hundred patients who were recommended a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited. The psychometric properties of the Japanese DCS, including internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and construct validity, were examined. We assessed the decisional conflict of patients before and after the pharmacists' provision of information. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients, predominately female, with an average age of 58.1 years were sampled. The scores on the 5 subscales of the DCS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84--0.96). Multi-trait scaling analysis and cluster analysis showed strong validity. The mean total DCS score decreased significantly from 40.2 to 31.7 after patients received information from the pharmacists (p < 0.001, paired t-test). Scores on all 5 subscales, namely, uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision, also significantly improved (p < 0.001 for all categories, paired t-test). CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the DCS are considered appropriate for it to be administered to patients with cancer. Pharmacists' provision of information was able to decrease decisional conflict among patients with cancer who were recommended a new chemotherapy regimen.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Psychology 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2014.
All research outputs
#2,926,217
of 6,228,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#591
of 866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,551
of 97,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#25
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,228,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 866 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 97,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.