Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554891›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Public knowledge of chronic kidney disease evaluated using a validated questionnaire: a cross-sectional study.

Pankti A Gheewala, Gregory M Peterson, Syed Tabish R Zaidi, Matthew D Jose, Ronald L Castelino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Pankti A GheewalaDivision of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia. Pankti.Gheewala@utas.edu.au.
Gregory M PetersonDivision of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Syed Tabish R ZaidiDivision of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Matthew D JoseSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Ronald L CastelinoSydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening programs may help to address the burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Australia. Public awareness is an important determinant of the uptake of screening programs. However, data on the public knowledge of CKD in Australia is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a validated questionnaire and assess the Australian public knowledge of CKD.

methodsA CKD knowledge questionnaire was developed after reviewing the literature and discussions with nephrology experts. Content validity was performed by nephrologists (n = 3), renal nurses (n = 3) and research personnel (n = 4). The questionnaire was piloted in 121 public participants. Next, discriminant validation was performed by recruiting two additional groups of participants: final year undergraduate pharmacy students (n = 28) and nephrologists (n = 27). Reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha. Next, a cross-sectional survey of the Australian public (n = 943) was conducted by using the validated questionnaire. It was administered using an online Omnibus survey. Quota sampling was used for participant selection and to ensure that the final sample would match the key characteristics of the Australian population. Finally, a standard multiple regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of the public knowledge.

resultsThe median CKD knowledge scores of the public, students and nephrologists were 12, 19 and 23 (maximum score of 24), respectively, with statistically significant differences in the scores across the three groups (p < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis test). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), indicating that the questionnaire had good internal consistency. In the cross-sectional survey of the Australian public, the participants' mean (SD) age was 47.6 (±16.6) years and 51.2% were female. The mean (SD) knowledge score was 10.3 (± 5.0). The multivariate analysis showed that participants with a higher level of education; with a family history of kidney failure; with a personal history of diabetes; and currently or previously living in a relationship had significantly higher knowledge scores.

conclusionThe Australian public knowledge of CKD was relatively poor. Improving public knowledge may assist in increasing early detection and subsequent management of CKD in Australia.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRenal Insufficiency, ChronicSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultChronic kidney diseaseCross-sectional studyPublic knowledgeQuestionnaireQuizValidation

Identifiers

PMID29554891
PMCPMC5859642

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.