ArticleBMC psychology2024
The Chinese version of Defensive Medicine Scale (DMS): reliability and validity test among physicians.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The current state of defensive medicine and its association with empathy: a cross-sectional study among graduate students in Guangxi, China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of dentists' malpractice fears and defensive dentistry attitudes: a scale development.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Negative workplace gossip and turnover intention among kindergarten teachers: psychological safety as a mediator and organizational identification as a moderator.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The Development of a Scale Measuring Medical Mistrust Among Medical and Healthcare Students and Providers.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians are inclined to resort to defensive medicine (DM) for self-protection due to the increasing potential risk of medical litigation. DM is globally prevalent and has become an impediment to the development of healthcare. However, there is a lack of validated tools specifically designed to assess DM in China. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Defensive Medicine Scale (DMS) among clinicians to provide a practicable tool for relevant research.
methodsThe present research consists of two phases. In Phase 1, DMS was administered to survey 327 physicians, and the collected data were obtained for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Phase 2 applied DMS to survey 323 physicians, from which the data was used for confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability and cross-cohort consistency tests. Moreover, the participants of Phase 2 were required to complete Workplace Well-Being Scale (WWBS), Career Commitment Scale (CCS), Occupational Disidentification Scale (ODS), Intent to Leave Scale (ILS), and Difficult Doctor-Patient Relationship Questionnaire (DDPRQ-10) to test the convergent validity of DMS.
resultsThe Chinese version of DMS consists of 10 items divided into 2 dimensions, Positive Defensive Medicine (PDM) and Negative Defensive Medicine (NDM). The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor model fitted well (χ
conclusionThe Chinese version of DMS has been demonstrated to be an effective tool to assess defensive medicine among Chinese physicians with good psychometric properties.
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.