ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2022
Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of four-factor colorectal cancer screening belief 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.
- Colonoscopy Uptake in First-Degree Relatives of CRC Patients: Challenges and Intervention Strategies.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Screening improves the early diagnosis rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) and effectively reduces its mortality. The four-factor CRC screening belief scale is conducive to understanding the psychometric properties of screening beliefs, but no Chinese version of this scale is available. The purpose of this study was to test the psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the four-factor CRC screening belief scale in patients with cancer and their relatives. Methods: The four-factor CRC screening belief scale was translated into Chinese based on Brislin's model. A panel review ensured the cultural adaptation and content validity of the scale. The scale was then administered to a convenience sample of 425 Chinese people recruited from July 2019 to June 2021. Results: Exploratory factor analysis identified the factor structure for the Chinese version of the four-factor CRC screening belief scale, including perceived barriers, perceived benefits, self-efficacy, and optimism. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fits well. The scale-level content validity index was 1.0. The correlation between the Chinese version of the four-factor CRC screening belief scale and the CRC health belief model scale was statistically significant ( Conclusions: The Chinese version of the four-factor CRC screening belief scale showed adequate reliability and validity. The translation and validation of psychosocial assessment tools for CRC screening across languages, cultures, and countries will contribute to further international research collaborations and the improvement of the prospects for the prevention and care of CRC.
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.