ArticlePatient preference and adherence2014
The development and validation of the Satisfaction Questionnaire for Osteoporosis Prevention in Malaysia.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Malay Satisfaction Questionnaire for Osteoporosis Prevention in Malaysia.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Feasibility of an interprofessional collaborative osteoporosis screening programme in Malaysia.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020Article
- Development and validation of an Ambulatory Care Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire to assess pharmacy services in Malaysia.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Patient satisfaction with a chronic kidney disease risk assessment service in community pharmacies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate the English version of the Satisfaction Questionnaire for Osteoporosis Prevention (SQOP) in Malaysia.
methodsThe SQOP was modified from the Osteoporosis Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and developed based on literature review and patient interviews. Face and content validity were established via an expert panel. The SQOP consists of two sections: clinical services and types of counseling. There were 23 items in total, each with a five-point Likert-type response. Satisfaction score was calculated by converting the total score to a percentage. A higher score indicates higher satisfaction. English speaking, non-osteoporotic, postmenopausal women aged ≥50 years were included in the study. Participants were randomized to either the control or intervention group. Intervention participants were provided counseling, whereas control participants received none. Participants answered the SQOP at baseline and 2 weeks later.
resultsA total of 140 participants were recruited (control group: n=70; intervention group: n=70). No significant differences were found in any demographic aspects. Exploratory factor analysis extracted seven domains. Cronbach's α for the domains ranged from 0.531-0.812. All 23 items were highly correlated using Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.469-0.996 (P<0.05), with no significant change in the control group's overall test-retest scores, indicating that the SQOP achieved stable reliability. The intervention group had a higher score than the control group (87.91±5.99 versus 61.87±8.76; P<0.05), indicating that they were more satisfied than control participants. Flesch reading ease was 62.9.
conclusionThe SQOP was found to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing patients' satisfaction towards an osteoporosis screening and prevention service in Malaysia.
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.