ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Measuring the multidimensional reputation of a medicines regulatory agency: development and validation of a public-oriented scale.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The reputation of public agencies, encompassing the dimensions of performance, morality, procedure, and technical competence, is fundamental to understanding their behavior. However, standardized, individual-level measures of reputation suitable for surveys targeting the general public are lacking. This study aims to develop and validate a survey instrument for the general public to measure the multi-dimensional reputation of public agencies, with a focus on South Korea's medicines regulatory agency. Methods: Survey items were developed based on previous literature, refined through expert consultation, and validated through a population survey. The validation study involved 1,000 participants from the public, selected using a quota sampling method stratified by age, sex, and region, according to the South Korean census. Validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis and hypothesis testing, while reliability was evaluated using internal consistency. Results: Exploratory factor analysis identified a three-dimensional structure of reputation, encompassing performance, procedure, and technical competence, while morality was not distinctly identified as a separate dimension. Construct validity, including convergent and discriminant validity, was confirmed. The internal consistency of the three dimensions was acceptable, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.91. The overall reputation of the medicines regulatory agency was measured at 72 out of 100. The specific dimension scores were as follows: 74 for technical competence, 71 for performance, and 70 for procedure. Conclusion: The agency should recognize the multidimensional nature of reputation and foster an environment that enables the public to observe and evaluate these dimensions. Reputation management strategies should emphasize not only technical expertise but also performance and procedural aspects to ensure a well-rounded reputation.
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.