ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
The Clinicians' Satisfaction with Clinical Pathway Implementation: Preliminary Development of an Assessment Scale in China.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulation research on the clinical path of non-small cell lung cancer surgery based on time petri net.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Impact of clinical pathway implementation satisfaction, work engagement, and hospital-patient relationship on quality of care in Chinese nurses.International nursing review · 2025Article
- Satisfaction with clinical pathway implementation versus job performance of clinicians: empirical evidence on the mediating role of work engagement from public hospitals in Sichuan, China.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Identification of an oncological clinical pathway through questionnaires to health professionals.BMC health services research · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a satisfaction scale of Chinese clinicians with Clinical Pathway (CP) implementation and evaluate its validity, reliability and item discrimination. MATERIALS AND
methodsLiterature review, in-person interviews, and Delphi were used to design the scale. Data were collected in two phases using random sampling on the spot and an online survey. In the first phase, data from 239 clinicians were investigated in exploratory factor analysis. In the second phase, 513 valid questionnaires were collected and used for confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsThe scale developed in this study has three dimensions (organization support, process identity, and effect perception) and a total of 21 items. Cronbach's alpha of each dimension was higher than 0.9. The 3-factor model had enough fitness (χ2/df = 5.602, NFI = 0.926, IFI = 0.938, CFI = 0.938, RFI = 0.914, TLI = 0.929, RMSEA = 0.095, RMR = 0.045). The standardized factor loadings of 21 variables were between 0.742 and 0.949. The average variance extracted (AVE) of each dimension was higher than 0.7, and the construct reliability (CR) of the dimensions was higher than 0.9. The Chi-square difference test results showed that the difference value between the unlimited and limited model of each two potential constructs was higher than 3.84 (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe clinicians' satisfaction scale developed in this study has good construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, internal consistency, and item discrimination. This suggests its usefulness as a tool to assess the satisfaction of clinicians in the implementation of CP in China.
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.