SynthesisPloS one2024
Self-efficacy measurement instruments for individuals with coronary artery disease: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver the past decade, there has been a heightened interest in evaluating self-efficacy among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A significant number of instruments have been developed and validated, yet the need remains to assess the quality of their studies and their properties.
objectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties and link the content extracted from self-efficacy instrument items for individuals with CAD to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted following the Cochrane systematic review guidelines and COnsensus norms for Selection of health Measuring INstruments (COSMIN), registered under CRD42021262613. The search was carried out on MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, including studies involving the development and validation of self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD, without language or date restrictions. Data extraction was performed in May 2022 and updated in January 2023 and all the steps of this review were carried out by two different collaborators and reviewed by a third when there were divergences. Modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommended by COSMIN was used to determine the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Instrument categorization was carried out per COSMIN recommendations, according to the construct of interest and study population into three categories (A, B, or C).
resultsA total of 21 studies from 12 instruments were identified. The best-rated instruments received a recommendation of B, which means, additional validation studies are needed. Barnason Efficacy Expectation Scale (BEES) showed high-quality evidence for structural, construct, criterion, and internal consistency validity; Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) demonstrated high quality for content, structural, cross-cultural validity, and internal consistency; Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use (SEAMS) achieved a high level for structural, criterion, and internal consistency validity; Cardiovascular Management Self-Efficacy Scale exhibited high-level validity for structural, criterion, construct, and internal consistency. The CSES showed content linkage with all domains of the ICF, as well as the highest number of linkages with the categories.
conclusionsInstruments with a B-level recommendation hold potential for use. More studies assessing measurement properties are needed to reinforce or improve these recommendations. The CSES stands out as the most comprehensive instrument concerning the ICF.
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.