ArticleInternational journal of nursing sciences2021
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Head and Neck Information Needs Questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer and their caregivers.
Article in International journal of nursing sciences, 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.
- The status and challenges of HPV vaccine programme in China: an exploration of the related policy obstacles.BMJ global health · 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
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Head and Neck Information Needs Questionnaire (HaNiQ).
methodsThe HaNiQ was translated into a Chinese version using internationally recognized forward- and back-translation procedures. The reliability and validity of the HaNiQ were measured using Cronbach's α coefficient, split-half reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and Pearson correlation analysis.
resultsA total of 207 patients in different head and neck cancer (HNC) stages and 174 caregivers completed the Chinese version of the HaNiQ. Internal consistencies varied between good and very well (Cronbach's α coefficient 0.74-0.90); the split-half coefficient and the content validity index (CVI) of the questionnaire were 83.5% and 83.33%, respectively. The cumulative contribution rates of the 5 subscales in patients with HNCand their caregivers were 62.41% and 61.19%, respectively. However, there are some differences between the Chinese questionnaire for caregiver and the original questionnaire regarding the attribution of items. Items 22, 23, and 27 in the Psychosocial subscale of the English version were assigned to the Survivorship subscale in the Chinese version for caregivers.
conclusionsThe results demonstrated that the Chinese version of the HaNiQ is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the information needs of patients with HNC and that of their caregivers. Though the structure of the Chinese version was different from the English version for caregivers of HNC patients, the Chinese version of the HaNiQ appears to be reliable and would benefit from further testing.
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.