ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Validity and reliability of anxiety literacy (A-Lit) and its relationship with demographic variables in the Iranian general population.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Exploring the genetic and socioeconomic interplay between ADHD and anxiety disorders using Mendelian randomization.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Anxiety disorder is one of the most common mental disorders. This cross-sectional research aimed to determine anxiety literacy (A-Lit) psychometric properties among the Iranian population in 2022. Methods: This research was conducted on 690 people in Iran in 2022. In this study, people were selected by proportional stratified sampling, and the validity and reliability of the A-Lit designed by Griffiths were assessed. Validity of A-Lit was assessed by face validity, content validity, and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability of A-Lit was evaluated by the McDonald's omega coefficient, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and test- retest. In analytical sections, the tests of One-way ANOVA, Chi-squared test, and independent samples Results: The rates of S-CVI/Ave and CVR for A-Lit were 0.922 and 0.774, respectively. In confirmatory factor analysis, three items were deleted because the factor loading was less than 0.4, and goodness-of-fit indexes (Some of goodness-of-fit indexes: χ2/df = 4.175, GFI: 0.909, RMSEA = 0.068, PCFI = 0.745, AGFI = 0.883) were confirmed as the final model with 19 items. For all items, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.832, the McDonald's omega coefficient was 0.835, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.874. According to the results of this study, 1.3% ( Conclusion: The Persian version of A-Lit was confirmed with 19 items, and this scale is a reliable tool for measuring A-Lit in the general population. The results also showed that a few people have a higher level of anxiety literacy and that educational and intervention programs need to be designed and implemented for the public 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.