ArticleInternational journal of older people nursing2025
Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey for Korean Older People.
Article in International journal of older people nursing, 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.
- Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey for Korean Older People.International journal of older people nursing · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, initially developed in English, was designed to assess behaviour related to the ACP process. Although ACP is widely recognised globally, its adoption and practice differ considerably among countries, primarily due to unique cultural and policy-related factors. Therefore, ensuring appropriate translation and cultural validation of the tool is critical for its effective use in varied contexts. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the ACP Engagement Survey for use with Korean older people and to examine its psychometric properties.
methodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey design that was implemented in two phases. In phase 1, the ACP Engagement Survey underwent translation and cross-cultural adaptation from English to Korean by: (1) forward and backward translation, (2) committee review and (3) pretesting. In phase 2, psychometric properties of the finalised Korean version were examined via factor analysis, assessment of construct validity and analysis of internal consistency. The study sample comprised 235 community-dwelling older people with a mean age of 71.1 years.
resultsThe final Korean version of the ACP Engagement Survey (K-ACP-ES 12) was composed of 12 items across three factors: readiness, contemplation and self-efficacy. Hypothesis testing demonstrated construct validity of the K-ACP-ES 12 by a statistically significant correlation with the AD Knowledge Scale (r = 0.26, p < 0.001). In addition, the Korean version showed acceptable reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93.
conclusionsThe K-ACP-ES 12 demonstrated good reliability, acceptable structural validity and supported hypothesis-testing construct validity. Evaluating a patient's engagement in ACP is essential for assessing ACP quality, which constitutes a principal outcome of the ACP process. The findings highlight the necessity of tailoring and validating measurement tools within specific cultural and policy contexts to ensure accurate assessment of ACP outcomes and enhance the instrument's utility across varied populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings underscore the importance of tailoring and validating measurement tools within specific cultural and policy contexts to ensure accurate assessment of ACP outcomes and to enhance the instrument's applicability in both research and practice across diverse population.
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.