ArticleBMJ open2018
Assessment tools for the measurement of the self-efficacy of drug users: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and Correlates of Prescription Drug Misuse in a Nationwide Population Survey in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe abuse of alcohol and other drugs is a worldwide problem, the treatment of which poses a challenge to healthcare workers.
objectiveThis study presents a proposal for a systematic review to analyse the psychometric properties of assessment tools developed to measure the self-efficacy of drug users with regard to resisting the urge to take drugs in high-risk situations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The guiding question was based on PICOS (Population Intervention Comparator Outcome Setting), and the report of the methods of review protocol was written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Searches will be performed in the PsycINFO, Cochrane, Pubmed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases, followed by the use of the 'snowball' strategy. The inclusion criteria for the articles will be (1) assessment tool validation studies; (2) assessment tools developed to measure self-efficacy; (3) quantitative measures; (4) measures designed for use on adults; (5) data from self-reports of the participants; (6) studies involving a description of psychometric properties of the measures; and (7) studies that explain how the level of self-efficacy is scored. The search, selection and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. In cases of a divergence of opinion, a third reviewer will be consulted. The COSMIN checklist will be used for the appraisal of the methodological quality of the assessment tools and the certainty of the evidence in the articles (risk of bias) will be analysed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol does not require ethical approval. However, this protocol is part of the thesis entitled PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017068555.
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.