ArticlePloS one2020
Validation of the Spanish version of the questionnaire on Patient Empowerment in Long-Term Conditions.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between patient empowerment and related constructs, affective symptoms and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Exploring self-care experiences, challenges and preferences among patients with heart failure in Jordan: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Factors Associated with Self-Regulatory Fatigue in Chinese Older Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- [Adaptation and validation of EMPODERA-TB to evaluate empowerment of patients with pulmonary tuberculosisAdaptação e validação do instrumento EMPODERA-TB para avaliar o empoderamento em pacientes com tuberculose pulmonar].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient empowerment is a key factor in improving health outcomes.
objectiveTo evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the questionnaire on Patient Empowerment in Long-Term Conditions (PELC) that evaluates the degree of empowerment of patients with chronic diseases.
methodsThree measurements were made (at baseline, 2 weeks and 12 weeks) of quality of life (QoL), self-care, self-efficacy and empowerment. Reliability was evaluated as internal consistency for the entire sample. Test-retest reproducibility was evaluated for patients who were stable from baseline to week 2 (n = 70). Validity was analysed (n = 124) as baseline correlations with QoL, self-care, self-efficacy, clinical data and psychosocial variables. Sensitivity to change was analysed in terms of effect size for patients who had improved between baseline and week 12 (n = 48).
resultsThe study was carried out with 124 patients with a diagnosis of heart failure. Cronbach's alpha was high, at >0.9, and the interclass correlation coefficient was low, at 0.47. PELC questionnaire scores showed differences depending on New York Heart Association functional class (p<0.05) and, as posited in the a priori hypotheses, were moderately correlated with emotional dimensions of QoL (0.53) and self-efficacy (0.43). Effect size for the clinically improved subsample was moderate (0.67).
conclusionsThe results suggest that the Spanish version of the PELC questionnaire has appropriate psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency and validity and is low in terms of reproducibility and sensitivity to change.
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.