ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2019
A study of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire entitled "physicians' approach to and disclosure of medical errors and the related ethical issues".
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2019. 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.
- Governing with public engagement: an anticipatory approach to human genome editing.Science & public policy · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical errors are among the major challenges that threaten patients' health worldwide. The aim of this study was to design a valid and reliable questionnaire to investigate the status of medical error disclosure by physicians. A preliminary questionnaire was developed based on the extracted results from 37 interviews with specialists. To test the validity of the questionnaire, 20 medical practitioners and medical ethics authorities were asked to evaluate the relevance and clarity of each item. To measure the instrument's reliability (the intra-class correlation coefficient and Cronbach's alpha), a test-retest study was conducted on 20 randomly selected physicians twice with a 2-week interval. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20. The overall relevance and clarity of the instrument, with an average approach, were measured at 97.22 and 94.03 percent respectively. The Cronbach's alpha, which presents the internal consistency was satisfactory (0.70 - 0.79) for various domains of the questionnaire. The range of intra-class correlation coefficients for the items in all domains of the questionnaire was 0.76 to 1.00. Regarding the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, it can be an appropriate instrument in the assessment and monitoring of the status of medical error disclosure by physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31346395PMC6642466What 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.