ArticleThe Gerontologist2022
Adaptation and Validation of the Preparation for Future Care Needs Scale for Chinese Older Adults in Hong Kong.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Literature on Caregiving Preparation of Adult Children.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Future care preparation profiles and self-support ability among rural Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Latent profiles of future care preparation among older adults with stroke and associations with filial responsibility expectations.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Advancements and Innovation Trends of Information Technology Empowering Elderly Care Community Services Based on CiteSpace and VOSViewer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Metacognitive processes, situational factors, and clinical decision-making in nursing education: a quantitative longitudinal study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCare planning can protect against or offset potential stressors in the caregiving stage and mitigate their detrimental effects. This study aimed to translate, adapt, and validate 2 short forms of the multidimensional, theory-guided scale measuring preparation for future care needs (PFCN) among Chinese older adults in Hong Kong. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsData were derived from a cross-sectional survey of 862 community-dwelling individuals aged 60 years and older. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to assess the structural validity of the scales. Criterion-related validity, known-groups validity, and internal consistency were also examined.
resultsEFA yielded a 14-item 4-factor (awareness, avoidance, decision making, and concrete planning) model, which was supported by CFA and explained 68.9% of the total variance. CFA also supported the structural validity of the 5-item scale. Criterion-related validity of the 2 scales was supported by their significant and positive correlations with domain-specific planning behaviors for retirement. Known-groups validity of the 2 scales was demonstrated by significant differences in scores between male and female older adults and scores between different educational levels and socioeconomic status. Cronbach's alphas for the internal consistency of the 14-item and 5-item scales were 0.889 and 0.774, respectively. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: PFCN scales enable researchers and service practitioners to accurately understand and assess older adults' processes and efforts in care planning, facilitate the identification of individuals at risk from inadequate planning, and inform the development of interventions to enhance care preparation in target domains.
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.