ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the quality of communication questionnaire.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. 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.
- Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Spiritual Needs Questionnaire (SpNQ-20) Among Older Adults with Chronic Diseases in China.Journal of religion and health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective clinician-patient communication is essential for delivering quality end-of-life care. However, there are no validated measures to assess the quality of end-of-life communication for Chinese patients.
methodsThis study aims to cross-culturally adapt and validate the patient-reported Quality of Communication Questionnaire (QOC) for Chinese speaking patients. The QOC was translated and adapted using a standardized methodology consisting of forward translations, backward translations, expert panel review, and testing with patients. We conducted a cross-sectional study to perform principal component, content validity, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity analyses of the 16-item Chinese QOC (C-QOC). Subjects were Chinese-speaking advanced cancer (n = 82) and advanced chronic kidney disease (n = 68) patients attending outpatient clinics in five hospitals or receiving home-based palliative care in Hong Kong.
resultsThe content validity of the C-QOC was established by an expert panel. The C-QOC has a 3-component structure (general communication skills, communication about illness trajectory, and end-of-life care planning subscales) and demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.88; subscales 0.84-0.90). Convergent validity was supported by positive association between C-QOC score and overall clinician communication quality (r = 0.47, p < 0.001) and clinician comfort in discussing dying (r = 0.63, p < 0.001). Discriminant validity was demonstrated by the stronger association between overall clinician communication quality and general communication skills, compared to the other two subscales.
conclusionsThe C-QOC is a valid, reliable, and culturally relevant instrument for evaluating the quality of clinician end-of-life care communication by Chinese patients with advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease.
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.