ArticleAtencion primaria2016
[Reliability and external validity of a questionnaire to assess the knowledge about risk and cardiovascular disease and in patients attending Spanish community pharmacies].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2016. 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.
- Therapeutic Education and Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-Up Protocol, a Useful Tool for the Improvement of Patients at Cardiovascular Risk in Community Pharmacies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Knowledge about cardiovascular diseases in a first-level healthcare center in Lima, Peru.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of a heart disease blended learning program in physiotherapy students: a prospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Design and Validation of a Scale of Knowledge of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Lifestyle after Coronary Event.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the test-retest reliability of a questionnaire, with a validation preliminary, to assess knowledge of cardiovascular risk (CVR) and cardiovascular disease in patients attending community pharmacies in Spain. To complement the external validity, establishing the relationship between an educational activity and the increase in knowledge about CVR and cardiovascular disease.
designSub-analysis of a controlled clinical study, EMDADER-CV, in which a questionnaire about knowledge concerning CVR was applied at 4 different times. LOCATION: Spanish Community Pharmacies.
participantsThere were 323 patients in the control group, from the 640 who completed the study. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient to assess the reliability in 3 comparisons (post-educational activity with week 16, post-educational activity with week 32, and week 16 with week 32); and the non-parametric Friedman test to establish the relationship between an oral and written educational activity with increasing knowledge.
resultsFor the 323 patients in the 3 comparisons, the intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.624; 0.608 and 0.801, respectively (fair-good to excellent reliability). So, the Friedman test showed a statistically significant relationship between educational activity and increased knowledge (p < .0001).
conclusionsAccording to the intraclass correlation coefficient, the questionnaire aimed at assessing the knowledge on CVR and cardiovascular disease has a reliability between acceptable and excellent, which added to the previous validation, shows that the instrument meets the criteria of validity and reliability. Furthermore, the questionnaire showed the ability to relate an increase in knowledge with an educational intervention, feature that complements its external validity.
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.