Article Sidebar
Views PDF: 287
VALIDATING THE VIETNAMESE VERSION OF SHARED-DECISION MAKING AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS QUESTIONNAIRES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Shared-decision making (SDM) has been found to be significantly and positively associated with improved patient outcomes. Clinician skills for SDM communication help patients participate more actively in the SDM process. Instruments for measuring SDM communication skills in Vietnamese are not currently available. Objective: To translate the 4HCS scale from English into Vietnamese and then ascertain its reliability and validity. Materials and methods: A methodological study was conducted. The questionnaires were cross-culturally adapted by conducting forward and backward translations by a group of bilingual experts. Content validity was performed. Video-recorded consultations between midwife students and standardized patients were rated. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. Inter-rater reliability of the 4HCS was assessed by Pearson correlation. Intra-rater reliability was assessed by ICC consistency of agreement. Results: A total of 41 consultations were recorded and evaluated. Minor modifications were required to meet content validity. The internal consistency of the 4HCS was good. Intra-rater was excellent and inter-rater reliability of the 4HCS was acceptable. S-CVI and I- CVI were all 1, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72. Inter-rater reliability was 0.79 (p<0.05). Conclusions: The 4HCS scale demonstrated satisfactory psychometric characteristics. The Vietnamese version of these scales can be further implemented in clinical settings to evaluate SDM communication skills during consultations between healthcare providers and patients.
Article Details
Keywords
Shared-decision making, communication, psychometric property
References
2. Clayton M. F., Latimer S., Dunn T. W., et al. (2011), "Assessing patient-centered communication in a family practice setting: how do we measure it, and whose opinion matters?", Patient education and counseling, 84 (3), pp. 294-302.
3. Jensen B. F., Gulbrandsen P., Benth J. S., et al. (2010), "Interrater reliability for the Four Habits Coding Scheme as part of a randomized controlled trial", Patient education and counseling, 80 (3), pp. 405-409.
4. Koo T., Li M. (2016), "Cracking the code: providing insight into the fundamentals of research and evidence-based practice a guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research", Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15 (2), pp. 155-163.
5. Kottner J., Audigé L., Brorson S., et al. (2011), "Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed", International journal of nursing studies, 48 (6), pp. 661-671.
6. Krupat E., Frankel R., Stein T., et al. (2006), "The Four Habits Coding Scheme: validation of an instrument to assess clinicians’ communication behavior", Patient education and counseling, 62 (1), pp. 38-45.
7. Lenert L., Dunlea R., Del Fiol G., et al. (2014), "A model to support shared decision making in electronic health records systems", Medical Decision Making, 34 (8), pp. 987-995.
8. Mathijssen E. G. E., Vriezekolk J. E., Popa C. D., et al. (2020), "Shared decision making in routine clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an assessment of audio-recorded consultations", Ann Rheum Dis, 79 (2), pp. 170-175.
9. Nunnally J. C. (1967), "Psychometric theory".
10. Polit D. F., Beck C. T. (2017), "Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice ", Wolters Kluwer Health Philadelphia.
11. Scholl I., Nicolai J., Pahlke S., et al. (2014), "The German version of the Four Habits Coding Scheme - association between physicians' communication and shared decision making skills in the medical encounter", Patient Educ Couns, 94 (2), pp. 224-9.
12. Stemler S. E., Tsai J. (2008), "Best Practices in Quantitative Methods", SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks, California.