Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30591047›Full record

SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2018

Psychometric properties and performance of existing self-efficacy instruments in cancer populations: a systematic review.

Fei-Fei Huang, Qing Yang, An-Ni Wang, Jing-Ping Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Fei-Fei HuangSchool of Nursing, Fujian medical University, No.1 Xueyuan Road, Fuzhou, 350108, Fujian, China. pt860315@163.com.
Qing YangDepartment of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
An-Ni WangXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, No.172 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Jing-Ping ZhangXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, No.172 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. jpzhang1965@163.com.
Central South University · CNFujian Medical University · CNMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

Grant from the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China 2017J05133Startup Fund for scientific research, Fujian Medical University 2016QH017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to provide a systematic compilation of existing measures of self-efficacy developed specifically for use in cancer patients and provide descriptions and comparative evaluations of the characteristics, psychometric properties and performance parameters.

methodA systematic electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid (PsyINFO), EBSCO, Elsevier, Scopus to identify self-efficacy assessment tools for cancer patients, between January 1977 to February 2018. The characteristics of target population, instrument, development process and psychometric properties were summarized. All included instruments were subsequently appraised using a psychometric quality assessment tool based on previous publications. Validity of the quality assessment was reviewed and confirmed by five experts.

resultsFifteen cancer-related self-efficacy instruments were identified. Among them, (40.0%) 6/15 were task-specific, focusing on cancer-related health issues such as fatigue, communication, rehabilitation, exercise, and narcotic pain killer usage. Six instruments were disease-specific for breast cancer, lung cancer, or advanced cancer. Weaknesses of the development processes included the singularity of instrument construction methods, and non-transparent selection of the final items. The main limitation seen in the validation processes was that some important properties of instruments (e.g. test-retest reliability, criterion validity, responsiveness, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability) were not evaluated.

conclusionsThis review summarizes the limitations and strengths of current self-efficacy instruments for cancer patient. The information reported here can assist clinicians and researchers in the selection of the appropriate instrument. Finally, it points out the need for reporting validation statistics to facilitate the use of these instruments.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSelf EfficacyHumansNeoplasmsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesValidation Studies as TopicCancerInstrumentsMeasurement propertiesSelf-efficacySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30591047
PMCPMC6307141
OpenAlexW2906845446

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.