Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213753›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2022

Testing the validation and reliability of the Caregiver-Patient Activation Measure (CG-PAM).

Katherine Carleton-Eagleton, Iain Walker, Diane Gibson, Nicole Freene, Stuart Semple

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. From Willingness to Readiness: Caregiver Activation for Cancer Care in Singapore.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Katherine Carleton-EagletonFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, 11 Kirinari Street, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.
Iain WalkerSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Level 7, Redmond Barry Building, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Diane GibsonHealth Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, 11 Kirinari Street, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.
Nicole FreeneHealth Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, 11 Kirinari Street, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.
Stuart SempleHealth Research Institute and Research Institute for Sport & Exercise, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, 11 Kirinari Street, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Caregiver-Patient Activation Measure (CG-PAM). Methods: Based on the psychometric testing of the original Patient Activation Measure (PAM), three assessments of reliability and validity were completed on the CG-PAM. Test-retest reliability was assessed across two weeks ( Results: There was strong test-retest reliability ( Conclusion: The CG-PAM was found to have strong reliability, but there were inconsistent results across the validation tests conducted. Innovation: Future research must consider the dynamic nature of caring and the importance of the relationship between the caregiver/recipient when defining activation levels within the CG-PAM.

Indexed as

ActivationCaregiversCG-PAMChronic diseaseValidity testing

Identifiers

PMID37213753
PMCPMC10194270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.