ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
The Translation, Culture-Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale Among Chinese Older Population.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the cardiac rehabilitation barriers scale to the Chinese, and examine its reliability and validity among the older population. Methods: An approach comprising translation, cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity examination in the Chinese version was conducted in two hospitals in Jilin, China. The Results: In total, 325 participants completed the questionnaire with an average age of 61.23 ± 9.68 years. The item-total correlations were 0.432 to 0.678. Factor analysis of CRBS-C (Kaiser Meyer Olkin = 0.867, Bartlett's test p = 0.000) revealed four factors: logistical factors, comorbidities/functional status, perceived need/healthcare factors, and work/time conflict. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated a good model fit (χ2/df = 1.84, RMSEA = 0.051, CFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.945, SRMR=0.046). Cronbach's alpha was 0.88 for the scale, ranging from 0.801 to 0.88 for each item, which indicates the internal reliability was acceptable. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the CRRS has acceptable reliability and validity in the Chinese elderly population.
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.