SynthesisPloS one2023
Functional social support: A systematic review and standardized comparison of different versions of the DUFSS questionnaire using the EMPRO tool.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing social support networks in cancer survivors and their care partners: concordance between expected and received support.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Quality of Life, Perceived Social Support, and Treatment Adherence Among Methadone Maintenance Program Users: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Thai version of the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease Social Support Inventory in individuals with chronic illnesses.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- CEASE Tobacco Cessation Program: Validation of Self-Rated Quit with Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence.Global journal of cardiovascular diseases · 2025Article
- In-Person versus Virtual CEASE Smoking Cessation Interventions.Journal of biomedical and life sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional social support is one of the most established predictors of health, and the Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire (DUFSS) is one of the most commonly used instruments to measure this parameter. The objective of this study is to systematically review the available evidence on the psychometric and administration characteristics of the different versions of the DUFSS and perform a standardized assessment though to a specifically designed tool.
methodsA systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, WOS and SCIELO databases. All articles that contained information on the development process of the instrument, the psychometric properties and aspects related to its administration were included, without restrictions based on publication date, language, or the version of the questionnaire that was studied. The selection and extraction procedure were carried out by two researchers. The articles finally included were peer-reviewed through a standardised assessment using the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022342977.
resultsA total of 54 articles were identified. After eliminating duplicates and screening articles based on the selection criteria, 15 studies that examined the DUFSS questionnaire resulting in 4 different versions: 3 articles obtained the 8-item version; 11 the 11-item version; and a single article obtained two versions, the 14-item version and the 5-item version. At least 60% of them did so in a young adult population, predominantly female and with a medium-low socio-economic level or with characteristics of social vulnerability. The EMPRO evaluation showed that the 11-item version (54.01 total score) was the only one that had been studied on all recommended attributes and had higher total scores than the other versions: 8 items (36.31 total score), 14 items (27.48 total score) and 5 items (23.81 total score). This difference appears in all attributes studied, with the highest scores in "reliability (internal consistency)" and "validity".
conclusionsOf the 4 versions identified in the DUFSS questionnaire, the 11-item version was found to be optimal based on the EMPRO standardized tool. Although, a priori, we could prioritise its use in epidemiological studies over the other versions, it should be noted that this version should also be used with caution because there are attributes that have not been studied.
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.