Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23104995›Full record

ArticleJournal of health psychology2013

Assessing perceptions about hazardous substances (PATHS): the PATHS questionnaire.

G James Rubin, Richard Amlôt, Lisa Page, Julia Pearce, Simon Wessely

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health psychology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

G James RubinDepartment of Psychological Medicine , King's College London, UK. Gideon.rubin@kcl.ac.uk
Richard Amlôt
Lisa Page
Julia Pearce
Simon Wessely

Funding

Department of Health CDF/01/024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How people perceive the nature of a hazardous substance may determine how they respond when potentially exposed to it. We tested a new Perceptions AbouT Hazardous Substances (PATHS) questionnaire. In Study 1 (N = 21), we assessed the face validity of items concerning perceptions about eight properties of a hazardous substance. In Study 2 (N = 2030), we tested the factor structure, reliability and validity of the PATHS questionnaire across four qualitatively different substances. In Study 3 (N = 760), we tested the impact of information provision on Perceptions AbouT Hazardous Substances scores. Our results showed that our eight measures demonstrated good reliability and validity when used for non-contagious hazards.

Indexed as

Hazardous SubstancesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultHazardous Substancesbeliefscommunicationinformationpublic health psychologyrisk

Identifiers

PMID23104995
PMCPMC3785320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.