ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Psychometric assessment of the Chinese adaptation of the patient participation scale targeting inpatients: a validation research.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. 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 Validation of a Self-Management Motivation Scale for Children with Chronic Diseases.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Turkish Adaptation and Validation of Patient Participation Questionnaire (PPQ).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Factors influencing preclinical medical students' satisfaction with hospital teachers' instruction in a blended learning environment integrating the rain classroom platform in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this research was to introduce, translate, and verify the Patient Participation Scale (PPS) within a Chinese context. Methods: We applied a combination of internal consistency testing, item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. The research involved 453 individuals, comprising both outpatients and inpatients, across three Jinzhou Medical University-affiliated hospitals in China. Additionally, a subgroup of 50 patients underwent a retest after a 2-week interval to assess reliability. Results: The adapted Chinese edition of the PPS included 21 items. Exploratory factor analysis identified four distinct factors, accounting for 66.199% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a suitable four-factor structure ( Conclusion: The Chinese edition of the PPS emerges as a valid and reliable tool for assessing patient engagement in their own treatment as well as care, applicable in both inpatient as well as outpatient settings.
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.