ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023
Development and validation of patient diabetes knowledge questionnaire (PDKQ).
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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.
- Reduction of Salt and Sugar Contents in Canteen Foods and Intakes By Students and Staff at a Malaysian Higher Education Institution: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional primary care study of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of type 2 diabetes self-care and their association with sociodemographic and sociocultural factors in Cali, Colombia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Factors associated with attendance at a pharmacist-led group diabetes self-management education class and impact on health outcomes.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of diabetes knowledge plays a pivotal role in identifying and addressing patients' knowledge gaps. The implementation of a standardized diabetes knowledge assessment tool is important to ensure consistent scoring and facilitating the development of effective and standardized education programs.
aimTo develop and validate a patient diabetes knowledge questionnaire (PDKQ) to assess knowledge of diabetes mellitus patients.
methodsThe development of the PDKQ questionnaire involved three phases: item development, content validation, and reliability testing. In the item development phase, the initial draft of the PDKQ, comprising a multiple-choice answer questionnaire was developed. The content validation phase comprised two stages. Firstly, ten experts participated in the expert validation process, followed by face validation involving six patients. In the final phase, test-retest analysis was performed among diabetes mellitus patients to assess reliability.
resultsThe first draft of PDKQ consisted of 11 patient characteristics items and 37 items of multiple choices questions. During the expert validation, three items were eliminated due to low clarity, and an additional six items were removed as they were deemed irrelevant or unimportant. During the face validation, three patients' characteristic items and eight multiple-choice questions were excluded due to a content validity index of less than 0.83. In the test-retest phase, 36 subjects responded to 8 items pertaining to patients' characteristics and 20 multiple-choice questions. The test-retest analysis yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.88, indicating good reliability.
conclusionThe 20-item PDKQ is a reliable and robust tool in assessing the knowledge of diabetes mellitus patients in Malaysia. Its implementation allows standardized assessment of diabetic patients' knowledge levels, enabling targeted interventions to empower patients and optimize diabetes care practices.
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.