ArticleNursing open2023
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the instrument of health literacy competencies for health professionals.
Article in Nursing open, 2023. 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.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Health Behavior Motivation Scale(HBMS) for coronary heart disease patients in China.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the health behavior motivation scale: a translation and validation study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the instrument of health literacy competencies for health professionals.Nursing open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of an instrument of health literacy competencies for health professionals.
designThis study utilized a cross-sectional design.
methodsAuthorization was obtained from the authors of the original scale to translate the scale and perform cross-cultural debugging. From August 2020 to November 2020, 573 health professionals were randomly selected from primary, secondary and tertiary hospitals in Huzhou to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of an instrument of health literacy competencies for health professionals.
resultsThe Chinese version of the scale contains 49 items. The internal consistency Cronbach's α was 0.958 for the total scale and 0.791-0.956 for each dimension. The test-retest reliability was 0.973. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fitness degree of the model is good (χ
conclusionThe Chinese version of an instrument of health literacy competencies is reliable and valid, which is a credible and effective tool to assess the level of health literacy competencies in Chinese health professionals. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Health professionals with good health literacy competencies can provide patient-specific treatment and guidance to promote healthy outcomes for patients.
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.