IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04758-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of a physician dialogic risk communication instrument scale in Chinese online medical consultations on cancer treatment risks

Author

Listed:
  • Wenze Lu

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Janelle Yorke

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Yan Li

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Winsome-Yuk-Yin Lam

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Mengqi Li

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Yule Hu

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Cindy Sing Bik Ngai

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

Abstract

Given the complexity and diversity of risks involved in cancer treatment, physician dialogic risk communication (PDRC), which refers to dynamic, responsive, and interactive communicative expressions that take into account patients’ perspectives, concerns, and emotions regarding risks, is gaining increasing prominence. However, there is a gap in the availability of a validated instrument scale to measure PDRC, particularly in the context of online medical consultations (OMCs), which are experiencing global growth with a significant surge in China. PDRC benefits from the accessible, flexible, private, and interactive processes offered by OMCs, which help patients manage treatment risks, monitor for recurrence, and address emotional needs. This study aims to develop and validate a new instrument scale for assessing the PDRC from patients’ perspectives in the Chinese OMCs for cancer treatment risk communication. An eight-item instrument scale was developed using the Delphi method, translated into simplified Chinese, and its content and readability were confirmed through expert cross-checks and patient interviews. The scale was subsequently validated with 250 eligible participants from the Chinese mainland. The scale demonstrated high content validity, internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.801), homogeneity (corrected item-total correlations: 0.430–0.570), and a robust one-dimensional structure (eigenvalue > 1, loadings: 0.563–0.706). Over 90% of participants rated items as critical, with three items deemed ‘very important’ significantly more often. This study contributes to physician-patient communication literature and risk communication practices. Researchers could use this scale to evaluate the adherence of OMCs to PDRC as a physician communication quality indicator, adapt it for linguistically and culturally diverse populations, and apply it to guide physicians in addressing patient concerns through dialogic and patient-centered communication across online healthcare settings. Physicians can refer to the scale to enhance their communication skills during OMCs, foster patients’ positive psychological outcomes, and encourage patients’ proactive behaviors in cancer care and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenze Lu & Janelle Yorke & Yan Li & Winsome-Yuk-Yin Lam & Mengqi Li & Yule Hu & Cindy Sing Bik Ngai, 2025. "Development and validation of a physician dialogic risk communication instrument scale in Chinese online medical consultations on cancer treatment risks," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04758-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04758-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04758-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04758-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04758-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.