ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2024
Validation of traditional Chinese version of Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care Questionnaire in Taiwanese patients.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design, adaptation and content validation of the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care in Colombian Spanish (SPARC-Sp-Col).BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Holistic needs assessment for hospitalized patients with kidney disease: a prospective cross-sectional study.Journal of nephrology · 2025Article
- Psychometric Validation of Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care (SPARC) in Korean Cancer Patients.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Co-Designing a Strategy for Implementing the SPARC Holistic Needs Assessment Tool in the Colombian Clinical Context.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHolistic health care considers all aspects of patient care, namely the physical, psychological, spiritual, and social aspects. To assess which patient needs are unmet, a screening questionnaire covering the four aforementioned aspects is required. Therefore, the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC), a multidimensional, self-reported questionnaire designed to screen patients regardless of diagnosis, was developed. This study developed a translated and validated traditional Chinese version of the SPARC for patients in Taiwan.
methodsThe original English version of the SPARC was translated into a traditional Chinese version (SPARC-T) through forward-backward translation. Semistructured debriefing interviews were conducted with participants to evaluate the SPARC-T. The reliability and validity of the SPARC-T were assessed through Cronbach's alpha coefficients and a correlation analysis conducted using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire.
resultsFifty-three patients were enrolled from our hospital: 22 had cancer but the majority had nonmalignant chronic conditions. About internal consistency, the Cronbach's alpha values for all domains of the SPARC-T were favorable. A correlation analysis of the SPARC-T and FACT-G revealed significant correlations for the domains of physical symptoms, independence and activity, family and social issues, sleep, and treatment issues; no significant correlation was identified for the "psychological issues" domain.
conclusionThis study revealed that the SPARC-T is an effective tool for screening Mandarin-speaking patients. Thus, it can be used in hospitals to holistically screen and identify the needs of patients to ensure they can receive appropriate professional support and holistic health care.
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.