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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Epstein, Ronald M. & Franks, Peter & Fiscella, Kevin & Shields, Cleveland G. & Meldrum, Sean C. & Kravitz, Richard L. & Duberstein, Paul R., 2005. "Measuring patient-centered communication in Patient-Physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1516-1528, October.
    2. Angela Chang & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "The Measurements and an Elaborated Understanding of Chinese eHealth Literacy (C-eHEALS) in Chronic Patients in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.
    4. Richard L. Street JR, 2007. "Aiding Medical Decision Making: A Communication Perspective," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 550-553, September.
    5. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    6. Yun Cheng & Sha Fang & Jie Yin, 2022. "The effects of community safety support on COVID‐19 event strength perception, risk perception, and health tourism intention: The moderating role of risk communication," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(2), pages 496-509, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.
    2. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    3. Bergen, Clara & McCabe, Rose, 2021. "Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: The role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    4. Angell, Beth & Bolden, Galina B., 2015. "Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 44-56.
    5. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    6. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
    7. Shan-Fu Yu & Hui-Ting Wang & Meng-Wei Chang & Tien-Tsai Cheng & Jia-Feng Chen & Chia-Li Lin & Hsing-Tse Yu, 2022. "Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-23, October.
    8. McCormack, Lauren A. & Treiman, Katherine & Rupert, Douglas & Williams-Piehota, Pamela & Nadler, Eric & Arora, Neeraj K. & Lawrence, William & Street Jr., Richard L., 2011. "Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: A literature review and the development of a systematic approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1085-1095, April.
    9. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    10. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    11. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    12. Jaime Moore & Matthew Haemer & Nazrat Mirza & Ying Z Weatherall & Joan Han & Caren Mangarelli & Mary Jane Hawkins & Stavra Xanthakos & Robert Siegel, 2019. "Pilot Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Adolescents with Severe Obesity in US Pediatric Weight Management Programs within the COMPASS Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-12, May.
    13. Kevin Mertz & Romil F. Shah & Sara L. Eppler & Jeffrey Yao & Marc Safran & Ariel Palanca & Serena S. Hu & Michael Gardner & Derek F. Amanatullah & Robin N. Kamal, 2020. "A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 766-773, August.
    14. Sarah-Maude Deschênes & Marie-Pierre Gagnon & France Légaré & Annie Lapointe & Stéphane Turcotte & Sophie Desroches, 2013. "Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    15. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    16. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    17. Carla Brailey & Brittany C. Slatton, 2024. "Centering Black Women’s Voices: Illuminating Systemic Racism in Maternal Healthcare Experiences," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, May.
    18. K. D. Valentine & Ha Vo & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Suzanne Brodney & Michael J. Barry & Karen R. Sepucha, 2021. "Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 108-119, February.
    19. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    20. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.