ArticlePloS one2018
The need for information among patients with hematological malignancies: Psychometric analyses of the 62-item Hematology Information Needs Questionnaire (HINQ-62).
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 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.
- Heterogeneity and associated factors of information needs among patients with hematological malignancies in China: a latent profile analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric characteristics (content validity, internal consistency, and subscale structure) of the Hematology Information Needs Questionnaire-62 (HINQ-62), a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing the need for information among patients with hematological malignancies (HM-patients). Baseline data were used from a prospective study on the need for information which 336 newly diagnosed HM-patients had completed. In phase 1 (design phase), data from the first 135 patients were used and in phase 2 (validation phase), data from the remaining 201 HM patients were used. Content validity was analyzed by examining irrelevance of items. Items were considered irrelevant if more than 10% of the patients scored totally disagree on that item. The subscale structure of the HINQ-62 was investigated with Factor analysis (FA) (exploratory FA in phase 1 and confirmatory FA in phase 2). Cronbach's α was computed for the different subscales and >.70 was considered as good internal consistency. None of the 62 HINQ-items were irrelevant. Exploratory FA identified five subscales: "Disease, symptoms, treatment and side-effects", "Etiology, sleep and physical changes", "Self-care", "Medical tests and prognosis", and "Psychosocial". Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) among patients was 0.037 in phase 1 and 0.045 in phase 2. The comparative fit index (CFI)/Tucker-Lewis index -non-normed fit index among patients was 0.984/0.983 and 0.948/0.946, in phase 1 and 2 respectively. The internal consistency of the subscales was good, with Cronbach's α 0.82-0.99. The HINQ is a valid PROM for assessing the need for information among Dutch HM-patients at diagnosis.
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.