Trial reportPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2025
Psychometric Performance of Florida Patient Acceptance Survey in Danish Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients.
Trial report in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient device acceptance reflects the psychological adjustment to living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and is an important outcome for ICD patients. The Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) is the gold standard for assessing patient device acceptance; however, the most optimal factor structure of the FPAS is an open question.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of FPAS by conducting head-to-head comparison tests between the proposed factor structures using prospective data from a national, Danish randomized controlled trial (ACQUIRE-ICD).
methodsThe sample included 478 first-time ICD recipients (mean age 59.6 ± 11.6 years), predominantly male (83.1%), assessed at ICD implantation and at 1-year follow-up (n = 364; 76.2%), completing the FPAS and measures of anxiety, depression, and Type D personality.
resultsConfirmatory factor analyses showed that the abbreviated 12-item, three-factor version had the best fit to the data (CFI = 0.929), shortly followed by the original 15-item, four-factor version (CFI = 0.917, Δχ
conclusionsIn a large prospective cohort from a national Danish ICD study, the shortened, three-factor, 12-item version of the FPAS appears to be the most suitable version. The FPAS demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties at both ICD implantation and 1-year follow-up.
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.