Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710546›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

Developing and validating of the Clinical Uncertainty Measurement Questionnaire (CUMQ) among practicing physicians and clinical residents in Iran.

Shirin Ghanavati, Hamid Reza Baradaran, Seyed Kamran Soltani Arabshahi, Shoaleh Bigdeli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shirin GhanavatiCenter for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid Reza BaradaranCenter for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. baradaran98@gmail.com.
Seyed Kamran Soltani ArabshahiCenter for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shoaleh BigdeliCenter for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the fact that clinicians face uncertainty in their decisions, there is no comprehensive framework to measure it in medical practices which is the knowledge gap especially for Iran. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of a Persian questionnaire which is designed to measure different determining aspects of uncertainty from clinical physicians' perspectives in Iran.

methodsClinical Uncertainty Measurement Questionnaire (CUMQ) has been derived from a mixed method study since March 2019 to January 2021. To exclude raw items of the questionnaire, the literature was reviewed and in-depthinterviews were implemented with 24 residents,specialists and sub-specialists in all major clinical fields which resulted in the first theoretical uncertainty in clinical decision making framework. CUMQ content validity has been evaluated using content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR). The structural validity of the questionnaire was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and factor loading and t-value for each indicator of uncertainty is reported. Moreover, to analyze the research model we used the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique using the SmartPLS software. Convergent (using Average Variance Extracted (AVEs) for each latent variable) and discriminant validity (using the criteria of Fornell and Larckerand cross loading) of the model was also evaluated. After that, the quality of the model was evaluated adjustment through predictive validity (Q

resultsThe CVR and CVI ranged from 0. 80 to 1. 00 which illustrates high content validity. Out of 30 items, 24 items had acceptable factor loading and remained in the questionnaire which have been categorized as five main clinical uncertainty dimensions; general determinants, individual determinants of the physician, individual determinants of patient, dynamics of medical sciences, diagnostic and instrumental limitations. The value of composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha for all dimensions were above the threshold value of 0. 7 and the reliability has been confirmed. As AVE values were greater than 0. 5, convergent validity is confirmed. The result of Fornell-Larcker and cross-loadings also indicated that discriminant validity is well established.

conclusionThis CUMQ is as avalid and reliable instrument and a suitable tool to measure clinical uncertainty in the Iranian Medical community. However, the reliability of this questionnaire can be studied in other languages and in other countries.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingPhysiciansHumansIranPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUncertaintyClinical UncertaintyQuestionnaireReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID35710546
PMCPMC9202180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.