ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
Validity and reliability of an adapted questionnaire measuring knowledge, awareness and practice regarding familial hypercholesterolaemia among primary care physicians in Malaysia.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric evaluation of the current geriatric Institutional assessment profile: a tool for age-friendly care evaluation.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the HPV-WAK questionnaire for assessing women's awareness and knowledge in Iran.PloS one · 2026Article
- Enhancing healthcare access through telehealth: patient-centred insights from Pakistan's primary care sector.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of the Evaluating Attitudes, Training and Skills in Dysphagia Care (EATS) Questionnaire Among Nursing Home Nurses in Singapore.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Clinical Decision Support Requirements for Ventricular Tachycardia Diagnosis Within the Frameworks of Knowledge and Practice: Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Development, validation and reliability of a questionnaire to evaluate coaches' and players' perceptions, learning, and resources regarding the ruck in rugby union.South African journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Development of self-administered questionnaire on barriers, prescription practices, and guideline adherence of osteoporosis management among tertiary care clinicians: content validity and reliability analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Korean Version of the Nursing Student Attitudes and Knowledge toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients Scale.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Addressing the underdiagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia: A mixed methods study exploring the knowledge and practice behaviors of cardiology healthcare providers.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Factors Associated with Screening Mammogram Uptake among Women Attending an Urban University Primary Care Clinic in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A mixed methods study of the awareness and management of familial hypercholesterolaemia in Irish general practice.Frontiers in 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care physicians (PCP) play an important role in detecting Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) early. However, knowledge, awareness and practice (KAP) regarding FH among Malaysian PCP are not well established, and there was no validated tool to assess their FH KAP. Thus, the aim of this study was to adapt an FH KAP questionnaire and determine its validity and reliability among Malaysian PCP.
methodsThis cross-sectional validation study involved Malaysian PCP with ≥ 1-year work experience in the primary care settings. In Phase 1, the original 19-item FH KAP questionnaire underwent content validation and adaptation by 7 experts. The questionnaire was then converted into an online survey instrument and was face validated by 10 PCP. In Phase 2, the adapted questionnaire was disseminated through e-mail to 1500 PCP. Data were collected on their KAP, demography, qualification and work experience. The construct validity was tested using known-groups validation method. The hypothesis was PCP holding postgraduate qualification (PCP-PG-Qual) would have better FH KAP compared with PCP without postgraduate qualification (PCP-noPG-Qual). Internal consistency reliability was calculated using Kuder Richardson formula-20 (KR-20) and test-retest reliability was tested on 26 PCP using kappa statistics.
resultsDuring content validation and adaptation, 10 items remained unchanged, 8 items were modified, 1 item was moved to demography and 7 items were added. The adapted questionnaire consisted of 25 items (11 knowledge, 5 awareness and 9 practice items). A total of 130 out of 1500 PCP (response rate: 8.7%) completed the questionnaire. The mean percentage knowledge score was found to be significantly higher in PCP-PG-Qual compared with PCP-noPG-Qual (53.5, SD ± 13.9 vs. 35.9, SD ± 11.79), t(128) = 6.90, p < 0.001. The median percentage awareness score was found to be significantly higher in PCP-PG-Qual compared with PCP-noPG-Qual (15.4, IqR ± 23.08 vs. 7.7, IqR ± 15.38), p = 0.030. The mean percentage practice score was significantly higher in PCP-PG-Qual compared with PCP-noPG-Qual (69.2, SD ± 17.62 vs. 54.4, SD ± 19.28), t(128) = 3.79, p < 0.001. KR-20 value was 0.79 (moderate reliability) and average Kappa was 0.796 (substantial agreement).
conclusionThis study has proven that the 25-item adapted FH KAP questionnaire is valid and reliable. It can be used to measure and establish FH KAP among PCP in Malaysia.
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.