ArticleAlpha psychiatry2023
Development and Validation of Coronavirus Disease 2019-Induced Perceived Stigmatization in Physicians Scale.
Article in Alpha psychiatry, 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.
- Development and reliability and validity testing of a medication literacy scale for medical college students.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- From obligation to action: unraveling the roles of social responsibility and prosocial tendency in shaping Chinese doctors' vaccine hesitancy.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- The relationship between problematic internet use and psychological distress in older Chinese teachers (40+) during different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: three cross-sectional studies.Frontiers in public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is well-established that healthcare professionals are stigmatized by the society during infectious disease outbreaks. The present study aimed to develop a scale to measure the coronavirus disease 2019-induced perceived stigmatization in physicians and investigate its validity and reliability. Methods: The present methodological type of study was carried out with 303 physicians working with a university hospital. The researchers drafted a 5-point Likert-type "Coronavirus Disease 2019-Induced Perceived Stigmatization in Physicians Scale" by using an item pool consisting of 35 items upon a review of the relevant literature. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient), item-total correlation coefficient, and test-retest analyses were used to assess the reliability of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed with an aim to evaluate the construct validity of the scale. Results: The scale consisted of 10 items and 2 domains (environmental perceived stigmatization and personally perceived stigmatization) upon completion of the scale development step. The items on the scale explained 61.66% of the total variance, where the factor loads were between 0.66 and 0.85. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.88, and the item-total correlation coefficients were all above 0.3. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, the resultant model had goodness-of-fit indices with sufficient fit. Conclusion: The Coronavirus Disease 2019-Induced Perceived Stigmatization in Physicians Scale was a reliable and valid tool for the physicians.
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.