ArticleScandinavian journal of public health2017
Reproducibility of an extensive self-report questionnaire used in secondary coronary prevention.
Article in Scandinavian journal of public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of measurement properties of medication adherence instruments in cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical and psychological factors in coronary heart disease patients with statin associated muscle side-effects.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Trial
- Attention training technique delivered in groups as treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with coronary heart disease: study protocol for a waiting-list randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in coronary artery disease patients with Type D personality.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Predictors of health-related quality of life in outpatients with coronary heart disease.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Worry and rumination predict insomnia in patients with coronary heart disease: a cross-sectional study with long-term follow-up.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022Article
- The Attention Training Technique Reduces Anxiety and Depression in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Pilot Feasibility Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Relationships between depression, anxiety, type D personality, and worry and rumination in patients with coronary heart disease.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Insomnia in patients with coronary heart disease: prevalence and correlates.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Managing patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes after coronary events: individual tailoring needed - a cross-sectional study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
- Medical and sociodemographic factors predict persistent smoking after coronary events.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
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
aimsSelf-reported information from questionnaires is frequently used in clinical epidemiological studies, but few provide information on the reproducibility of instruments applied in secondary coronary prevention studies. This study aims to assess the test-retest reproducibility of the questionnaire applied in the cross-sectional NORwegian CORonary (NOR-COR) Prevention Study.
methodsIn the NOR-COR study 1127 coronary heart disease (CHD) patients completed a self-report questionnaire consisting of 249 questions, of which there are both validated instruments and de novo questions. Test-retest reliability of the instrument was estimated after four weeks in 99 consecutive coronary patients. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Kappa (κ) were calculated.
resultsThe mean interval between test and retest was 33 (±6.4) days. Reproducibility values for questions in the first part of the questionnaire did not differ from those in the latter. A good to very good reproducibility was found for lifestyle factors (smoking: κ = 1.0; exercise: ICC = 0.90), medical factors (drug adherence: ICC = 0.74; sleep apnoea: ICC = 0.87), and psychosocial factors (anxiety and depression: ICC = 0.95; quality of life 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF12): ICC = 0.89), as well as for the majority of de-novo-created variables covering the patient's perceptions, motivation, needs, and preferences.
conclusionsThe present questionnaire demonstrates a highly acceptable reproducibility for all key items and instruments. It thus emerges as a valuable tool for evaluating patient factors associated with coronary risk factor control in CHD patients.
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.