ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2024
Psychometric Properties of Chinese Version of the Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (C-BEDA) Tool.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 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.
- The Relationship Between Barriers to Medical Error Disclosure and Patient Safety Culture: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
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
Aim: The Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (BEDA) tool is used to measure barriers to the disclosure of medical errors by healthcare professionals. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the BEDA (C-BEDA). Background: The culture of disclosure and transparency in response to medical errors has been recommended in recent years. However, there are no relevant assessment tools for measuring barriers to disclosing medical errors in China. Methods: The C-BEDA tool underwent translation, back translation, cross-cultural adaptation in a pilot study. It was tested with 1254 healthcare professionals in Guizhou and Sichuan Provinces, China. The content validity index (CVI) was used to evaluate the content validity of the C-BEDA, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate its structural validity. The Cronbach's α coefficient and test-retest reliability were evaluated to determine its reliability. Results: Three factors were extracted by EFA that explained 65.892% of the total variance of the C-BEDA tool. CFA showed a good fit for a three-factor structure with acceptable values: goodness-of-fit index=0.939; adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.911; incremental fit index=0.967; comparative fit index=0.967; partial least squares path modeling for confirmatory factor analysis=0.735; and root mean square error of approximation=0.058. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the average scale-level content validity index was 0.98. The Cronbach's α coefficient (0.909) and test-retest reliability (0.86) were acceptable. Conclusion: The C-BEDA toolis a valid and reliable tool for assessing the extent of barriers to error disclosure among Chinese healthcare professionals.
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.