ArticleNursing open2023
Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation in China.
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.
- The relationship between returning to work self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression in renal cancer patients: a cross-lagged analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Return to work in young and middle-aged colorectal cancer survivors: Factors influencing self-efficacy, fear, resilience, and financial toxicity.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation in China.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
aimTo develop a Chinese version of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTW-SE-11) and verify its reliability and validity.
designA validation study.
methodsThe RTW-SE-11 was translated into Chinese according to the Brislin's model, and then the semantic adjustment of questionnaire was carried out through multi-field expert evaluation and preliminary investigation.
resultsAll 11 items of the original questionnaire were retained. Content validity index (CVI) of the Chinese version of RTW-SE-11 indicated good validity, with Inter-rater Agreement (IR) of 0.97, item CVI of 0.90-1.00 and questionnaire CVI of 0.91. Cronbach's α coefficient of RTW-SE-11 (Chinese version) was 0.923, suggesting high internal consistency, with test-retest reliability of 0.799 and half-fold reliability of 0.926. Patient or public contribution: The Chinese version of the RTW-SE-11 questionnaire confirmed good reliability and validity for the assessment of return to work self-efficacy in Chinese breast cancer 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.