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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Finderup et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: