Development of the IcanSDM scale to assess primary care clinicians’ ability to adopt shared decision-making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To support studies on the implementation of shared decision making (SDM), we sought to develop and validate the IcanSDM scale that assesses clinicians’ perceptions of their ability to adopt SDM. Results : An expert panel reviewed the literature on clinician-reported barriers to SDM adoption, to create an 11-item preliminary scale. A convenience sample of 16 clinicians from Québec (Canada) completed the IcanSDM and the Belief about capabilities subscale of the CPD-Reaction instrument (BCap), before and after SDM training. We audio-recorded their comments as they completed the scale. We measured IcanSDM’s internal consistency, sensitivity to change and correlation with BCap. Partial correlation coefficients and item analyses suggested removing three items. In the 11-item IcanSDM version, three items lacked clarity or responsiveness, or showed negative partial correlations with the whole instrument. We thus removed these items. The revised 8-item version gave Cronbach’s alphas of 0.63 before and 0.71 after training, and a 16% improvement in IcanSDM total score after training, compared to before training (p<0.0001). We also found a significant correlation between IcanSDM and the BCap before training (p=0.02), but not after (p=0.46).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it