ArticleJournal of health psychology2015
Unreliable item or inconsistent person? A study of variation in health beliefs and belief-anchors to biomedical models.
Article in Journal of health psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Mobile Health Literacy, Stroke-Related Health Knowledge, Health Beliefs, and Self-Efficacy on the Self-Care Behavior of Patients with Stroke.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Can the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scales be adapted for use in the context of osteoarthritis with general practitioners and physiotherapists?BMC rheumatology · 2020Article
- Analysis of Multiple Partially Ordered Responses to Belief Items with Don't Know Option.Psychometrika · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The reliability of an item designed to measure health belief is often confounded with response consistency at the person level. The study applied contemporary measurement methods to an inventory of common sense beliefs about diabetes and used a sample of N = 563 adults with diabetes to test the hypothesis that individuals whose beliefs are congruent with a biomedical model are more consistent in their responses. Item-level analysis revealed that the domains of Causes and Medical Management were the least reliable. Person-level analysis showed that respondents who held views congruent with the biomedical model were more consistent than people who did not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.