ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2022
Psychometric properties of a simplified Chinese version of the cancer predisposition perception scale.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic approach to identify therapeutic targets and functional pathways for the cervical cancer.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Cancer predisposition perception refers to the subjective estimation of the likelihood of being diagnosed with cancer in the future. It affects people's behavior concerning cancer screening and prevention. At present, there is no available tool to evaluate cancer predisposition perception. The aim of this study was to translate the cancer predisposition perception scale into simplified Chinese (C-CPPS), and then test its psychometric properties among Chinese patients. Methods: In phase I, the CPPS was translated into Chinese, and validated by an expert panel. In phase II, data on reliability and validity was evaluated in terms of construct validity, criterion validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and item-total correlations, with a convenience sample of 208 patients recruited from the colorectal cancer surgical ward. Results: The C-CPPS had desirable validity and reliability. The scale-level content validity index was 0.96. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the six-factor structure of the C-CPPS was good fit to the data. Correlation between the C-CPPS and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire was statistically significant. Cronbach's α for the entire scale was 0.90 and 0.71-0.95 for five of the six subscales. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.309 to 0.775, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97. Conclusions: The C-CPPS appears to be culturally appropriate, reliable, and valid for assessing cancer predisposition perception among patients with colorectal cancer in China.
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.