ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025
Validity and Reliability of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory and Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale in Patients Living With Cancer.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. 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.
- Psychometric Properties of Caregiver Contribution and Self-Efficacy Scales in Cancer.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Revision and Psychometric Testing of the Delirium Care Self-Efficacy Scale for ICU Nurses.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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to test the psychometric properties of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory and the Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale in patients with cancer.
designA multisite cross-sectional validation study was conducted.
methodsBetween November 2022 and July 2023, a convenience sample of 318 patients with cancer were enrolled in five Italian inpatient and outpatient facilities. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the three scales of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory and the Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha for unidimensional scales and McDonald's Omega for multidimensional scales. Construct validity was assessed with the global health status by Pearson's correlation. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments reporting guidelines were followed for the reporting process.
resultsThree hundred fourteen patients were included (median age: 55.5 years; male: 53.82%). Confirmatory factor analysis showed supportive fit indices for the three Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory scales (CFI: 0.977-1.000; SRMR: 0.004-0.78) and the Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale (CFI: 1.000; SRMR: 0.014). All scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency (0.89-0.99) and test-retest reliability (0.85-0.95). Construct validity was confirmed through correlations between Self-Care Self-Efficacy, each Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory scale, and global health status.
conclusionThe Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory and Self-Care Self-Efficacy scales demonstrated excellent psychometric qualities and construct validity when administered to patients with cancer. Future research should explore self-care behaviours across different diseases and cultural contexts. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: These tools can help develop targeted educational programs, improving patient outcomes. IMPACT: Currently, there is a lack of knowledge regarding self-care behaviours in patients with cancer. These tools enable healthcare professionals to identify patient needs, design personalised interventions, and monitor their effectiveness over time. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.