Observational studyPloS one2022
Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Bereavement Care Confidence Scale (C-PBCCS) in nursing practice.
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Influencing Bereavement Care Competence in Midwifery Students: Regression and QCA Analysis.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Psychological pathway to emotional exhaustion among nurses and midwives who provide perinatal bereavement care in China: a path analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- The mothers' breastfeeding behaviour within six weeks postpartum: new scale development and psychometric validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Article
- Exploring interactions between women who have experienced pregnancy loss and obstetric nursing staff: a descriptive qualitative study in China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Perinatal Bereavement Care Confidence Scale (PBCCS) was designed to evaluate midwives' and nurses' confidence and its psychosocial factors to provide bereavement care in Ireland. However, it is unknown whether this scale is valid and reliable for use with midwives and nurses in China. The aim of this study was to translate the English version into Chinese (C-PBCCS) and determine its validity and reliability in a population of Chinese midwives and nurses.
methodsIn this cross-sectional observational study, after translating the English version of the PBCCS into Chinese and ensuring the linguistic adequacy and clarity of the language, we evaluated the validity and reliability of the C-PBCCS with Chinese midwives and nurses (n = 608). Participants were recruited using convenience sampling from 10 maternity hospitals in Zhejiang and Jiangsu Provinces. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the construct validity (n = 304). Another sample of 304 midwives and nurses was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the quality of the factor structures. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Guttman split-half coefficient were adopted for the evaluation of internal consistency. The STROBE was followed in reporting the results.
resultsThe 43-item PBCCS was reduced to 40 items. Bereavement support knowledge (13 items, three factors), Bereavement support skills (eight items, two factors), Self-awareness (eight items, two factors), and Organizational support (11 items, two factors). The CFA suggested that the four scales in the C-PBCCS had acceptable fit indices. The Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.835-0.901. The Guttman split-half coefficient was between 0.868-0.933.
conclusionThe C-PBCCS was found to be a psychometrically sound measurement tool to evaluate Chinese-speaking midwives' and nurses' confidence and the psychosocial factors that affect their confidence in providing perinatal bereavement care.
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.