ArticleBMC geriatrics2021
The Turkish version of the SPPIC validated among informal caregivers with a Turkish immigrant background.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing a Mobile e-Coaching App for Immigrant Informal Caregivers: Qualitative Study Using the Persuasive System Design Model.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study assesses the internal consistency and known group validity of the Turkish version of the SPPIC, a measurement instrument to assess the self perceived pressure from informal care in family caregivers of people with dementia that was originally in Dutch.
methodsThe feasibility, comprehensibility and appropriateness of the Turkish SPPIC were assessed during a pilot test. Internal consistency was examined based on data from 117 family caregivers with a Turkish immigrant background by calculating Cronbach's alpha and by conducting a single-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Known group validity was determined to obtain an understanding of the validity of the translated instrument, testing differences in the self-perceived pressure from informal care, depending on frequency of caregiving, living with a person with dementia and level of education.
resultsThe pilot test showed that the translated SPPIC was considered to be feasible, comprehensible and appropriate. The internal consistency appeared to be strong (Cronbach's alpha: 0.94). The CFA indicated that the factor 'Self-perceived Pressure from Informal Care' explained varying levels of variance in the items of the SPPIC (ranging from .52 to .87). Family caregivers who provided care at least once a week and who shared a home with a person with dementia perceived a greater pressure from informal care (p = 0.007, p = 0.001).
conclusionsThe Turkish translation of the SPPIC can be used in future research and practice to obtain insight into self-perceived pressure from informal care of family caregivers with Turkish immigrant backgrounds. At the same time it is recommended to conduct more research on how the measurement of self-perceived pressure from informal care in this group can be further improved.
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.