Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey validates a modified decisional conflict scale for primary caregivers, highlighting key decision factors.
Background: Caregivers of long-term care (LTC) residents often face decisional conflict during unplanned hospitalization decisions. This study aimed to adapt and psychometrically validate a modified Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) for primary family caregivers. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 205 caregivers in 20 LTC facilities. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) were performed on randomly split subsamples, and structural equation modeling (SEM) examined associations among Decision Antecedents, Decision-Making Process, and Decisional Conflict. Bollen–Stine bootstrap procedures were applied to provide robust estimates under slight deviations from multivariate normality. Given the cross-sectional design and single-sample nature of this study, the SEM findings should be interpreted as theory-informed associations rather than causal effects. Longitudinal or intervention-based studies are needed to establish temporal ordering and determine whether improvements in caregiver readiness and decision-making processes lead to subsequent reductions in decisional conflict. Results: The modified DCS demonstrated strong internal consistency and a single-factor structure (α = 0.98, factor loadings 0.83–0.90). SEM indicated that Decision Antecedents and Decision-Making Process were significantly associated with Decisional Conflict (R2 = 0.68). The mediation analysis suggested that the Decision-Making Process partially mediated the relationship between Decision Antecedents and Decisional Conflict. Conclusions: The modified DCS appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing decisional conflict among LTC caregivers. Findings highlight the importance of caregiver readiness, support, and communication in shaping decisional experiences. Given the cross-sectional design and single sample, results should be interpreted as associations rather than causal effects. Future research should replicate these findings in larger, diverse samples and explore short-form versions of the scale.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: