ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Subjective Response Measurement to Prosthesis or Device Use: Validation of the Prosthetic-Bionic Paradigm Questionnaire (PBP-Q).
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Many subjects with somatic pathologies or traumas in their recent anamnesis tend to experience symptoms and changes to their daily life parameters after technically successful treatment. Hence, this study aims to validate an investigation tool inspired by the prosthetic-bionic paradigm-namely, the PBP-Q-which allows for the evaluation of variation in questions relating to identity, psychosociality, and psychopathology in relation to the use of a prosthesis or device. We gathered 118 participants (68 females and 50 males) aged between 27 and 94 years (Mean = 58.42 ± 15.17). We performed both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses on this sample. Moreover, we calculated the internal consistency for the PBP-Q scales and the total score for the questionnaire's final 26-item and 5-factor versions. The five scales are psychological well-being; interpersonal relationships; professional relationships; autonomy and safety; addictions, compulsions, and obsessions. The internal consistency is good for both the total score and the subscales. In conclusion, overall, the PBP-Q has satisfactory psychometric properties, especially considering the measure's complexity. It provides a quick and effective way to evaluate the changes that might arise after the use of a prosthesis or device and, subsequently, has implications for clinical practice.
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.