ArticlePloS one2020
Translation and validation study of the Polish version of the Brief Hepatitis C Knowledge Scale.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hepatitis C Knowledge and Self-Reported Testing Behavior in the General Population in China: Online Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic hepatitis C (HCV), considered by the World Health Organization as one of the greatest epidemiological health hazards, often with asymptomatic clinical course and one which, due to scanty knowledge, remains a crucial risk factor of serious chronic HCV infection complications. The purpose of this study is to validate the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the validated Brief Hepatitis C Knowledge Scale (BHCKS_PL), developed by Balfour in 2009.
methodsThe study, conducted from May to July 2018, included 246 persons (68,69% females), divided into four subgroups: patients (n = 86), nursing students (n = 74), medical students (n = 28), healthcare workers (nurses and doctors; n = 58). The 19-items questionnaire contained questions designed to assess general knowledge regarding hepatitis C and the transmission risk factors.
resultsAn evaluation by means of multiple comparisons in pairs showed that there were significant differences in the knowledge level between the group of patients and the group of nursing students (Mdn: 14.0 vs 11.0, z = 7.713, P<0.001), and between students of medicine (Mdn: 16.0 vs 11.0, z = 0.339, P<0.001) and healthcare workers (17.0 vs 11.0, z = 11.447, P<0.001). Moreover, significant differences were observed between the groups of students of nursing and medicine (Mdn: 14.0 vs 16.0, z = 3.646, P = 0.002) and healthcare workers (Mdn: 14.0 vs 17.0, z = 4.117, P<0.001). No significant differences in the knowledge level between the students of medicine and healthcare workers were observed (z = 0.377, P = 1.000).
conclusionsThe completed validation suggests good BHCKS_P psychometric characteristics with the internal consistency convergent and known-groups validity. The questionnaire can be used in educational practice. The obtained results of the measurement provide information about the studied person based on the total score.
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.