ArticleBMC psychology2025
Scale of employees' initiative for proactive health: development and validity testing.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) pose a significant public health challenge, with employees particularly vulnerable due to modifiable lifestyle risk factors. Proactive health underscores the importance of self-initiated behaviors in disease prevention and health promotion. However, existing measures primarily assess workplace initiative, overlooking its relevance to health. This study aims to develop and validate the Employees' Initiative for Proactive Health (EIPH) scale to address this gap.
methodsThe instrument development phase identified 11 preliminary items through literature review and expert consultation with five experts. The item discrimination index, item-total correlations, preliminary reliability, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed on a pilot sample of 204 participants, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and concurrent validity on the main sample of 289 participants. The cutoff value was also assessed.
resultsThe EIPH scale was refined to five items, with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 45.71% of the variance. Standardized factor loadings for the CFA indices ranged between 0.41 and 0.55. The correlation coefficient for concurrent validity was 0.569 (p < 0.001), and Cronbach's α coefficient for reliability was 0.58. The cutoff value was 18.5 points.
conclusionsThe scale demonstrated reasonable and reliable measurement of EIPH among Chinese participants.
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.