ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS).
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient health literacy is vital to clinical trial engagement. Knowledge and beliefs about clinical trials may contribute to patient literacy of clinical trials, influencing engagement, enrollment and retention. We developed and assessed a survey that measures clinical trial health knowledge and beliefs, known as the Clinical trial HEalth Knowledge and belief Scale (CHEKS). The 31 survey items in CHEKS represent knowledge and beliefs about clinical trial research (n = 409) in 2017. We examined item-scale correlations for the 31 items, eliminated items with item-scale correlations less than 0.30, and then estimated internal consistency reliability for the remaining 25 items. We used the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate model fit. The average age of the sample was 34 (SD = 15.7) and 48% female. We identified 6 of the 31 items that had item-scale correlations (corrected for overlap) lower than 0.30. Coefficient alpha for the remaining 25 items was 0.93 A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model with 16 correlated errors was not statistically significant (chi-square = 10011.994, df = 300, p < 0.001) but fit the data well (CFI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.07). CHEKS can assess clinical trial knowledge and beliefs.
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.