ArticleZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences2024
Development and its reliability and validity of the Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Scale for Informal Caregivers of Pressure Injury Patients.
Article in Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences, 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 psychometric validation of the User Experience Scale for Artificial Intelligence QuestionZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
- Effect of an educational intervention on nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices in adherence to pressure injury prevention: a randomized controlled trial.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- [Current status and influencing factors of care burden in informal caregivers of patients with pressure injuries].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 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
objectivesThere is a lack of scientifically validated tools to measure the knowledge attitude and practice (KAP) of informal caregivers for patients with pressure injury (PI). This study aims to develop a KAP Scale for Informal Caregivers of PI Patients and to evaluate its reliability and validity.
methodsBased on the KAP theory framework and relevant literature, an initial pool of items was created through expert brainstorming sessions. The initial scale was formed after a Delphi expert consultation and a preliminary survey. From April to October 2023, a convenient sample of informal caregivers for PI patients was recruited from an inpatient department of the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, as well as its associated community and nursing homes. The first round included 186 participants, and the second round included 213 participants, who were used for item analysis and reliability and validity testing. After a 3-week interval, 20 participants from the initial group were randomly selected for a retest to assess the test-retest reliability of the scale.
resultsThe KAP Scale for informal caregivers of PI patients consists of 3 dimensions with 19 items. The overall internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the scale was 0.916. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.826 to 1.000, and the scale level-content validity index/average (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.94. Exploratory factor analysis extracted 3 common factors, accounting for 64.643% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit the data well, with
conclusionsThe KAP scale for informal caregivers of PI patients demonstrates good reliability and validity and can be used to assess the KAP levels of informal caregivers regarding PI.
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.