ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Development and Validation of a Self-Quantification Scale for Patients With Hypertension.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Giant Step in Personalized Medicine?Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese adapted and revised food allergy self-efficacy scale for parents.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Assessing hypertension knowledge and its association with sociodemographic variables among hypertensive patients in Bangladesh.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Associations between parental protective motivation, behaviors, and child outcomes in allergic diseases: a cross-sectional study based on protection motivation theory.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the physical literacy scale for young and middle-aged patients with hypertension.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity testing the Chinese version of the nursing surveillance scale: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Patients' sense of medical gain on family doctor contracting services in China: scale development and preliminary validation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the addictive and detrimental effects of novel psychoactive substances among university students.BMC public health · 2024Article
- The effect of childhood family adversity on adulthood depression among Chinese older migrant workers: gender differences in the mediating role of social-ecological systems.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The self-management ability of patients with hypertension is poor, and self-quantification increases gradually with the development of electronics. Self-quantification for patients with hypertension has important implications for individual health. However, there is a lack of relevant scales at present, and we aim to develop a self-quantified scale for patients with hypertension. Methods: The instrument was developed based on protection motivation theory with literature review, a qualitative interview study and focus group discussions, and pilot testing. A total of 360 patients with hypertension were investigated using the scale. The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated concerning validity and reliability employing internal consistency reliability, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity (S-CVI/Ave and I-CVI), and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis). Results: The final scale had 30 items with seven sub-domains. The Cronbach's α for all domains was 0.900 with a range of 0.817-0.938. The split-half reliability coefficient for all domains was 0.743 with a range of 0.700-0.888. The test-retest reliability coefficient for all domains was 0.880 with a range of 0.849-0.943. The S-CVI/Ave for all domains was 0.922 with a range of 0.906- 0.950, and the I-CVI of each item was a range of 0.800-1.000. The result of confirmatory factor analysis of this scale showed that χ2/df was 2.499, RMSEA = 0.065, GFI=0.865, NFI=0.894, IFI=0.934, TLI=0.914, CFI=0.933, RFI=0.865. The Pearson's coefficients between the total scale and every domain were ranging from 0.347 to 0.695, and each domain ranged from 0.130 to 0.481. Conclusion: The scale has good validity and reliability and can be used as a self-quantification scale for patients with hypertension.
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.