ArticleJournal of community health2024
Validation of a Modified Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale Among Young Latinx Adults in the United States.
Article in Journal of community 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.
- Validity and Reliability of a Bilingual Healthcare Discrimination Scale Among Churchgoing Latino Adults in Los Angeles.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical mistrust is an important barrier to accessing health care among Latinx populations in the United States (US). However, research on the validity and reliability of medical mistrust scales is limited. We examined the validity and reliability of a modified bilingual version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust scale (mGBMMS) among a sample of Latinx adults. Participants included 308 Latinx adults (ages 18-25), who responded in Spanish (n = 134) or English (n = 174). Following feedback from bilingual/bicultural staff during the English-Spanish translation process, we made three changes to the original GBMMS. Validation testing of our 12-item mGBMMS scale included: split-half and internal consistency reliability; discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity; and both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The mGBMMS had good internal consistency (overall sample: Cronbach's α = 0.79; Spanish: Cronbach's α = 0.73; English: Cronbach's α = 0.83). The mGBMMS showed good convergent (moderately correlated with the experiences of discrimination scale, r = 0.46, p < 0.001) and discriminant (weakly correlated with the acculturation scale, r = 0.11, p = 0.06) validity. Split-half reliability was 0.71 (p < 0.001). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses found a two-factor solution. The mGBMMS was associated with satisfaction with care (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.42-0.87), a sign of good predictive validity. Findings suggest that the mGBMMS is a valid and reliable scale to utilize among bilingual (Spanish/English) populations in the US. Further validation studies should be considered among Latinx respondents of different ages, backgrounds, languages, and US regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38980508What 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.