Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36313132›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of women health nursing2021

Development and validation of women's environmental health scales in Korea: severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy, benefit, barrier, personal health behavior, and community health behavior scales.

Hee Kyung Kim, Hyun Kyoung Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of women health nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Hee Kyung KimDepartment of Nursing, Kongju National University, Gongju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2103-4835
Hyun Kyoung KimDepartment of Nursing, Kongju National University, Gongju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2782-108X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to develop the following scales on women's environmental health and to examine their validity and reliability: severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy, benefit, barrier, personal health behavior, and community health behavior scales. Methods: The item pool was generated based on related scales, a wide literature review, and in-depth interviews on women's environmental health according to the revised Rogers' protection motivation theory model. Content validity was verified by three nursing professionals. Exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity, and internal consistency reliability were examined. Results: The scales included 10 items on severity, 11 on susceptibility, 10 on response efficacy, 14 on self-efficacy, 8 on benefits, 10 on barriers, 17 on personal health behavior, and 16 on community health behavior. Convergent validity with the environmental behavior scale for female adolescents was supported. The Cronbach's α values for internal consistency were good for all scales: severity, .84; susceptibility, .92; response efficacy, .88; self-efficacy, .90; benefits, .91; barriers, .85; personal health behavior, .90; and community health behavior, .91. Conclusion: The evaluation of the psychometric properties shows that these scales are valid and reliable measures of women's environmental health awareness and behaviors. These scales may be helpful for assessing women's environmental health behaviors, thereby contributing to efforts to promote environmental health.

Indexed as

Environmental healthHealth behaviorPsychometricsWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID36313132
PMCPMC9334188

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.