ArticlePloS one2021
Psychometric evaluation of patient assessment of chronic illness care among Korean cancer survivors.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement Properties of Instruments Used to Assess Diabetic Foot: An Umbrella Review.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Pooled it
- Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Role of Psychological Distress in the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and Self-Management Behaviors of Elderly Patients with T2DM Chronic Complications.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Article
- Patients' Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC): Validation and Evaluation of PACIC Scale among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Hungary.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was developed in the United States to assess the implementation of the Chronic Care Model (CCM)-based intervention from the patient's perspective. Although the psychometric properties of the PACIC have been reported in other chronically ill patients, it has not been reported in cancer survivors. Our aim was to evaluate the acceptability, validity, and reliability of a Korean version of the PACIC among cancer survivors (K-PACIC-CS).
methodsAmong 204 cancer survivors at a university-based hospital in South Korea, we performed psychometric evaluation of the K-PACIC-CS according to acceptability (descriptive statistics, missing values, and floor and ceiling effects), validity (confirmative factor analysis [CFA] and convergent validity), and reliability (internal consistency, i.e., Cronbach's alpha).
resultsThe item response was high (missing rate = 0.5%). The floor effect was 3.9%- 43.6% and the ceiling effect was 6.9%- 41.2%. The CFA revealed good indices of fit and confirmed the five structures predetermined in the original version of PACIC. The K-PACIC-CS scores had significant positive relationships with cancer survivors' self-efficacy and health-related quality of life. The total K-PACIC-CS showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .94) and those of the subscales were acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = .76 -.86).
conclusionsThis study suggests that the K-PACIC-CS is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring implementation of CCM-based chronic care from the survivor's perspective.
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.