Outcome
Type |
Measure |
Description |
Time frame |
Safety issue |
Primary |
Participant characteristics questionnaire |
The structured questionnaire designed by researcher. Participants' characteristics included age, sex, educational level, working unit, nursing clinical ladder, and nursing specialties. Participants' self-rated EBP-related abilities included English capability, previous evidence-based nursing learning, experiences, and practice. |
before intervention |
|
Primary |
Change is assessed of Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice questionnaire |
The outcome of EBP competency and application was measured by the Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice (HS-EBP) questionnaire, which aimed to assess EBP knowledge, attitudes, behavior, skills, as well as barriers and facilitators of EBP (Fernández-Domínguez et al., 2017). The HS-EBP contained 60 items that divided into five domains: beliefs-attitudes (12 items), results from scientific research (14 items), development of professional practice (10 items), assessment of results (12 items), and barriers-facilitators (12 items). A 10-point Likert scale from 1 to 10 was used for each item for measuring the degree of agreement with respect to EBP competency. A higher HS-EBP score indicated the greater the degree of agreement. |
Change from baseline, Week 2, Week 6, and Week 10 |
|
Primary |
Change is assessed of SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Nr questionnaire |
The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Nr were developed for using in adult clinical setting, it has been adapted to address the SDM between healthcare providers and the patient in separate studies resulting in consistent testing (Scholl et al., 2012). Both SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Nr contain nine items with responses on a 6-point Likert scale ranging between "completely disagree" and "completely agree". A total raw score between 0 and 45 was calculated by summing the scores of all items. The total raw score was transformed by the (Raw Score*20)/9 formula to create a sum score ranged between 0 and 100. This process assumes that the extent of SDM is additive, therefore, a higher score represents higher perceived SDM. |
Change from baseline, Week 2, Week 6, and Week 10 |
|
Primary |
Change is assessed of DSAT-10 questionnaire |
The DSAT-10 was used to evaluate the quality of decision support provided by health professionals to patients facing tough health decisions (Stacey et al., 2008). Each item as present "1" or absent "0" within the encounter. This 10-item scale had adequate inter-rater reliability (kappa = 0.55) and agreement for encounters involving trained nurses (kappa = 0.62) (Stacey et al., 2008). |
Change from baseline and Week 10 |
|
Primary |
Change is assessed of OPTION5 questionnaire |
OPTION5 is a brief, theoretically grounded observer measure of SDM based on the talk model (Elwyn et al., 2005). The five items of OPTION5 replicated the response format, assessment, and scoring methods of OPTION12. The scale was designed to measure the magnitude of skill. The scale scoring guidance as, the behavior was not observed "0", a minimal attempt was made to exhibit the behavior "1", asked about patient's preference "2", the behavior was exhibited to a good standard "3", and the behavior was observed and executed to a high standard "4". A total score ranged between 0 and 20, and rescaled between 0 and 100. The adequate inter-rater reliability of OPTION5 was presented by the intra-class correlation (ICC = 0.67). |
Change from baseline and Week 10 |
|
Primary |
Change is assessed of Four Habits Coding Scheme questionnaire |
The Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS) used to assess and quantify clinicians' communication behaviors from an external rater's perspective (Krupat et al., 2006). The 23-item 4HCS derived from the core skills in communication. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale which the midpoint and the two endpoints in specific behavioral terms indicated that the clinician used little or no jargon "1", some jargon "3", and highly technical "5". Rather than focusing on frequency counts of behavior, each item of the 4HCS was rated on five levels of performance on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not very effective) to 5 (high effective). A total score for each dimension can be calculated by summing the scores of all items of that dimension. Higher scores indicated better performance. The reliability of the 4HCS, the inter-rater coefficients ranged between .69 and .80 (Krupat et al., 2006). |
Change from baseline and Week 10 |
|
Primary |
Change is assessed of SURE test questionnaire |
The SURE test was based on the Ottawa Decision Support framework to screen for decisional conflict in patients facing clinical decisions in primary care (Légaré et al., 2010). Each item had a response of yes scoring "1" and a response of no scoring "0", with combined total scores from 4 items less than 4 indicating the patient experiencing decisional conflict. The SURE test showed adequate internal consistency of Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient of 0.7 (Ferron Parayre et al., 2014). |
Change from baseline and Week 10 |
|