ArticleARYA atherosclerosis2019
Validity and reliability of the Iranian version of the Cardiac Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale.
Article in ARYA atherosclerosis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-efficacy measurement instruments for individuals with coronary artery disease: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- The effect of pelvic floor muscle-strengthening exercises on low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized clinical trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023Pooled it
- The effect of trans-theoretical model stage-matched intervention on medication adherence in hypertensive patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of exercise self-efficacy in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is necessary to conduct tailored interventions. The aim of the current study was to validate the Iranian version of the Cardiac Exercise Self-efficacy Scale (CESE) for patients with CVD.
methodsTo develop the Iranian version of the CESE scale, a forward and back translation procedure was followed. Data were collected from 260 patients with CVD who were admitted to Imam Ali Cardiovascular Hospital, Iran, using convenience sampling. Psychometric properties of the scale including validity (face and content validity, discriminant, concurrent, convergent, divergent, and construct validity) and reliability (internal consistency, and test-retest reliability) were assessed. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis.
resultsThe questionnaire had a good face and content validity and reliability, with Cronbach's alpha of 0.87 and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.42. The questionnaire discriminated well between subgroups according to their medical conditions and the "health transition" item in the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). There was a significant correlation between CESE and the physical components of the SF-36 (P < 0.001). In addition, a strong to moderate significant correlation was found between the CESE and the Exercise Self-efficacy Scale (ESES) (r = 0.77; P < 0.01) and between CESE and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) total (r = -0.45; P < 0.001). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified a four-factor structure model, explaining 71.02% of the observed variance.
conclusionThe Persian version of the CESE is a valid and reliable instrument for the evaluation of CVD patients' exercise self-efficacy level in performing regular exercise behaviors.
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.