ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy spiritual well-being scale among Chinese childhood cancer patients in China.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Eating-related distress profiles and spiritual well-being in patients with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy: A latent profile analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spiritual well-being is a strength for childhood cancer patients to cope with cancer. The availability of a valid and reliable instrument for assessing spiritual well-being is crucial. This study translated and adapted the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Spiritual Well-being scale (FACIT-Sp) for Chinese childhood cancer patients and examined the psychometric properties and factor structure in this population. Methods: This was a methodological study. The FACIT-Sp was translated into Chinese. Adaptation was based on our qualitative study. For psychometric evaluation, a convenience sample of 412 were recruited based on the suggested sample size for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Childhood cancer patients were included if they aged 8-17 years, with parental consent to participate, able to communicate that they were being treated for cancer, and able to communicate and read Chinese. Participants answered the Chinese version of the adapted FACIT-Sp, the Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 3.0 Cancer Module (PedsQL). Content validity, convergent validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability were examined. Both EFA and CFA assessed the structural validity of the adapted FACIT-Sp. Results: The content validity index values for items ranged 0.8-1.0 and that for the scale was 0.84, indicating appropriate content validity. The scale had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.815. The FACIT-Sp scores positively correlated with the CES-DC scores, and negatively correlated with PedsQL scores, suggesting that the Chinese version of the adapted FACIT-Sp had reasonable convergent validity. EFA yielded a four-factor (meaning, peace, faith, and connection with others) model. The CFA results revealed that the four-factor model achieved a better fit than the original three-factor model (Chi-Square Mean/Degree of Freedom = 2.240 vs. 3.557, Comparative Fit Index = 0.953 vs. 0.916, Goodness of Fit Index = 0.909 vs. 0.884, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.078 vs. 0.112). Conclusion: The Chinese version of the adapted FACIT-Sp is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing spiritual well-being among Chinese childhood cancer patients. This instrument can be applied in clinical settings for routine assessment.
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.