075 Measuring healthcare provessionals’ perceptions of their ability to adopt shared decision making: translation and psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the IcanSDM questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Shared decision making (SDM) is a fundamental right for patients, however implementation is lacking. Healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) perception of own abilities to adopt SDM are crucial for the implementation of SDM. IcanSDM 1 2 is developed to measure HCPs’ perception of their abilities to adopt SDM. To our knowledge no other measurements in Danish exist covering this area, why the aim of this study was to adapt the IcanSDM measure for Danish-speaking HCPs and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods Cultural adaptation and translation based on Beaton et al’s approach was applied. A forward translation by ten people and a backward translation by two people were performed. To assess comprehensibility, cognitive interviews were conducted with 24 HCPs. Eighty HCPs who were trained in SDM for either one hour (n=65) or one day (n=15) participated in the psychometric evaluation. The evaluation concerned acceptance, item characteristics, skewness, item difficulties, corrected item-total, inter-item correlations, factorial structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness. Results The forward and backward translation revealed few discrepancies, and participants understood the items well. The psychometric evaluation showed a high completion rate and acceptable item difficulties and discrimination values. Both the factor analysis and the internal consistency showed a 2-factor structure. It obtained a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.74. The responsiveness showed improvement, but was not statistically significant. Discussion The IcanSDM_Danish is capable of providing reliable and valid measurement when evaluating constructed knowledge about SDM, and supporting the implementation of SDM training and evaluation of its impact. Conclusion The IcanSDM_Danish is a reliable cross-culturally valid measure with good internal consistency and a 2-factor structure. The IcanSDM_Danish represents a meaningful measure for identifying SDM barriers, monitoring the effect of SDM training, and supporting SDM implementation in clinical practice. References Giguère AMC, Bogza L-M, Coudert L, Carmichael P-H, Renaud J-S, Légaré F, Lindig A, Voyer P. Development of the IcanSDM scale to assess primary care clinicians’ ability to adopt shared decision-making. medRxiv. 2020;07.01.20144204. Lindig A, Hahlweg P, Christalle E, Giguère A, Härter M, von dem Knesebeck O, Scholl I. Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the IcanSDM measure - a cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:541.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".