ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Validity and reliability of the Depression Information Needs Scale among the Iranian general population.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The prevalence of depression in the community is high. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the information needs on depression in the community. This cross-sectional study aimed to translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Depression Information Needs Scale (DINS) among the general population. Methods: The translation and assessment of the validity and reliability of the DINS were conducted from February 2022 to May 2023 in Gonabad, Iran. The inclusion criteria in this study were individuals 18 years or older, those living in Gonabad for 1 year or more, and participants who provided written informed consent. Sample sizes of 546 and 629 were used for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), respectively. The reliability of the DINS was examined using three methods: McDonald's omega coefficient, test-retest reliability, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Results: Most participants were women, had a bachelor's degree, and were married. The values of 0.959 for scale content validity index averaging (S-CVI/Ave) and 0.817 for content validity ratio (CVR) were calculated. In the EFA section, four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted and explained 63.861% of the variance. Only two items were not placed in related or acceptable factors and were deleted. Finally, based on the results of the goodness-of-fit indexes (e.g., RMSEA = 0.074, CFI = 0.944, NFI = 0.930, and GFI = 0.911), the scale was approved with 18 items and 4 factors: lived experience (4 items), general (facts about depression) (6 items), research and policies (4 items), and specific treatments (4 items). For all the DINS items, the McDonald's omega coefficient, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were 0.953, 0.950, and 0.957, respectively. Conclusion: The Persian version of the DINS was validated with 18 items and 4 factors, and this scale can be used to assess depression information needs in the general public and specific groups.
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.