ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Development and Initial Validity of the Patients' Literacy Scale Among Outpatients in Hangzhou City, China.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of educational TV program intervention on transforming elderly patients, promote patient involvement, and mitigating violence toward physicians: a randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Workplace violence against COVID-19 front-line healthcare workers versus non-front-line in Hangzhou, China: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Enhancing doctor-patient relationships in community health care institutions: the Patient Oriented Four Habits Model (POFHM) trial-a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial protocol.BMC psychiatry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: There are few studies on the intervention of the doctor-patient relationship (DPR) from patients' perspective, because of lacking appropriate measurement instruments for the effect of the patient interveqntion. Understanding the status of patients' literacy (the ability to initiatively obtain, read, and analyze health-related materials, make appropriate decisions, reduce risks of health-related problems) and developing the patients' literacy scale (PLS) align with the interests of patients, doctors, and researchers. Patients and Methods: This study was conducted in two stages: item building and item refinement. A total of 303 subjects were recruited from the outpatient hall in three hospitals with different levels in Hangzhou city, China. Twenty patients and seven experts determined the face and content validity, respectively. The construct validity, convergent, discriminant validity, and known-group validity of the scale were examined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA). Internal consistency, including Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's ω, split-half reliability, and composite reliability (CR), was also tested. Results: The EFA of PLS showed that Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.787, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity showed a significance of Conclusion: This study showed that the PLS was valid and reliable to measure the patients' literacy (PL). The 15-item PLS can help not only measure PL but also be used as a standard and advocacy target for patients' behavioral model which can further improve the DPR.
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.