Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29309423›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Health protective behavior scale: Development and psychometric evaluation.

Weiwei Ping, Wenjun Cao, Hongzhuan Tan, Chongzheng Guo, Zhiyong Dou, Jianzhou Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Health Belief, Behavior Intention, and Health Behaviors Related to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Weiwei PingDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, P. R. China.
Wenjun CaoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, P. R. China.
Hongzhuan TanDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, P. R. China.
Chongzheng GuoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, P. R. China.
Zhiyong DouHealth Check Centre, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, P. R. China.
Jianzhou YangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA healthy lifestyle includes health protective and health promoting behaviors. Health promoting lifestyle profiles have been developed, but measures of health protective behavior are still lacking. This study sought to develop a health protecting behavior scale.

methodsAn initial item pool for the Health Protective Behavior Scale (HPBS) was generated based on read and referred literature and a single-item open-ended survey. An expert group screened this initial item pool using an item-level content validity index. Pilot testing was conducted. The degree of variation, the response rate, the item-total correlation coefficient, and the factor loading in factor analysis and item analysis were used to screen items using data of pilot testing. 454 subjects were recruited evaluate the psychometric properties of the HPBS. Analyses included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor analysis, parallel analysis, correlation analysis and criterion validity analysis.

resultsThe final iteration of the HPBS was developed with 32 items and five dimensions: interpersonal support, general behavior, self-knowledge, nutrition behavior and health care. Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and test-retest reliability were 0.89 and 0.89 respectively. Correlation coefficients of the five dimensions ranged from 0.28 to 0.55. The Spearman correlation coefficient between the total scores on the WHOQOL-BREF and on the HPBS was 0.34.

conclusionsHPBS has sufficient validity and reliability to measure health protective behaviors in adults.

Indexed as

PsychometricsHealth PromotionHumansLife Style

Identifiers

PMID29309423
PMCPMC5757924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.