ArticlePsychiatry investigation2024
Validation of Shortened Forms of Metacognition Questionnaire-Insomnia and Its Feasibility in the Discrepancy-Cognitive Arousal Model of Insomnia Among Patients With Cancer.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to explore the reliability and validity of the two shortened versions of the Metacognition Questionnaire-Insomnia (Metacognition Questionnaire-Insomnia-6 items [MCQI-6], Metacognition Questionnaire-Insomnia-14 items [MCQI-14]) among patients with cancer and examine the feasibility of the Discrepancy-Cognitive Arousal (DCA) model of insomnia among the cancer patients.
methodsA total of 154 patients with cancer were enrolled in this survey, which included rating scales such as the discrepancy between desired time in bed and desired total sleep time (DBST) index, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Cancer-related Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitude about Sleep-14 items (C-DBAS-14), MCQI-6, and MCQI-14.
resultsBoth the MCQI-6 and MCQI-14 showed a good reliability of internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good model fit for two single-factor shortened versions. The total score of the MCQI-6 was significantly correlated with the MCQI-14 (r=0.97, p<0.01), ISI (r=0.68, p<0.01), C-DBAS-14 (r=0.78, p<0.01), and DBST index (r=0.21, p<0.05). Mediation analysis showed that the DBST index did not directly influence insomnia severity; however, the relationship was mediated by cancer-related dysfunctional beliefs about sleep and sleep-related metacognitive process among patients with cancer.
conclusionThe Korean versions of MCQI-6 and MCQI-14 are useful, reliable, and valid tools to evaluate sleep-related metacognitive processes among patients with cancer. The DCA model of insomnia was feasible even among cancer patients.
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.