ArticleBMC palliative care2020
Development and validation of the cancer symptoms discrimination scale: a cross-sectional survey of students in Yunnan, China.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer cognition in basic education teachers: interactions with cancer fear, e-health literacy, and self-efficacy.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with shame and stigma among head and neck cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Psychometric Characteristics of the Chinese Version of the Tuberculosis Related-Stigma Scale in a Population of Medical Students and Its Correlation with Selected Demographic Characteristics.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Cognition of the warning symptoms and risk factors for cancer among Chinese college students: a cross-sectional study based on a summer social practice activity.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Development and reliability and validity test of the Fear of Cancer Scale (FOCS).Annals of medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to devise a Cancer symptoms Discrimination Scale (CSDS) suitable for China based on a cross-sectional survey.
methodsThe CSDS was developed using the classical measurement theory. A total of 3610 students from Yunnan province, China, participated in the cross-sectional survey. The test version of the scale was modified by the item analysis method, and after the official version of CSDS was developed, its reliability and validity were verified. A univariate analysis of variance and a multiple linear regression model were used to analyze the influencing factors of cancer symptoms discrimination among the university/college students.
resultsThere were 21 items in total for the CSDS, including 3 subscales --- common clinical manifestations (11 items), physical appearance defects (6 items), and drainage tube(s) wearing (4 items). This CSDS had good validity (GFI = 0.930, AGFI = 0.905, RMR = 0.013, I-CVIs> 0.80, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was satisfactory.) and reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.862, spearman-brown coefficient = 0.875). The multiple linear regression showed that certain factors may affect the students' discrimination level against cancer symptoms (P < 0.05), including gender, major, current education degree, guardian's highest record of formal schooling, self-rated health status, history of care for cancer patients, family relationship, ways of cancer knowledge acquisition, good/poor understanding of cancer-related information, degree of cancer fear, and their perception of cancer infectiousness.
conclusionThis CSDS, with good reliability and validity, can be used for the evaluation of the discrimination risk and levels against cancer symptoms among healthy students.
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.