ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Face and content validity of the EMPOWER-UP questionnaire: a generic measure of empowerment in relational decision-making and problem-solving.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-making behavior of blood glucose management and its influencing factors in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Patient Navigation in Mothers at Risk for and Surviving with Breast/Ovarian Cancer: The Role of Children's Ages in Program Utilization and Health Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making and problem-solving processes are powerful activities occurring daily across all healthcare settings. Their empowering potential is seldom fully exploited, and they may even be perceived as disempowering. We developed the EMPOWER-UP questionnaire to enable assessment of healthcare users' perception of empowerment across health conditions, healthcare settings, and healthcare providers' professional backgrounds. This article reports the initial development of EMPOWER-UP, including face and content validation.
methodsFour grounded theories explaining barriers and enablers to empowerment in relational decision-making and problem-solving were reviewed to generate a preliminary item pool, which was subsequently reduced using constant comparison. Preliminary items were evaluated for face and content validity using an expert panel of seven researchers and cognitive interviews in Danish and English with 29 adults diagnosed with diabetes, cancer, or schizophrenia.
resultsA preliminary pool of 139 items was reduced to 46. Independent feedback from expert panel members resulted in further item reduction and modifications supporting content validity and strengthening the potential for generic use. Forty-one preliminary items were evaluated through 29 cognitive interviews, resulting in a 36-item draft questionnaire deemed to have good face and content validity and generic potential.
conclusionsFace and content validation using an expert panel and cognitive interviews resulted in a 36-item draft questionnaire with a potential for evaluating empowerment in user-provider interactions regardless of health conditions, healthcare settings, and healthcare providers' professional backgrounds.
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.