ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Validation of the Traditional Chinese Version of the Belief About Medicines Questionnaire-Specific Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Taiwan.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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.
- Empowering Adherence Assessment: Translating and Validating the 15-STARS Questionnaire for Use in Taiwanese Community Pharmacies.Patient preference and adherence · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding personal beliefs about medications is an effective approach to improving adherence. A validated tool is essential for identifying these beliefs in routine clinical practice. Objective: To validate the factor structure and reliability of the Traditional Chinese version of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific (BMQ-Specific) among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Taiwan. Methods: The original 10-item BMQ-Specific was translated into Traditional Chinese using a forward-backward translation process and reviewed by four experts in pharmacy practice and educational psychology. A cross-sectional study was conducted among adults with T2D who were using diabetes medications. Participants were recruited from five community pharmacies in Taiwan between June 2023 and May 2024. Internal consistency was assessed using McDonald's omega (ω). Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis, and criterion validity was determined by exploring associations between concern beliefs, medication adherence, and glycemic control, as measured by A1C levels. Results: Two hundred and seventy-three patients participated in the study. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a two-factor structure consistent with the original English version, comprising the Specific-Necessity and Specific-Concerns subscales. All items loaded onto their respective subscales. The internal consistency reliability of the instrument was acceptable, with McDonald's ω values of 0.785 for both the BMQ-Specific Necessity and BMQ-Specific Concerns subscales. These satisfactory properties were further supported by predictive validity data, which demonstrated the impact of treatment beliefs on adherence levels. The BMQ-Specific Concerns subscale showed a positive correlation with higher barriers to medication-taking (r = 0.270, p < 0.001) and poorer glycemic control (r = 0.130, p = 0.032). Conclusion: The Traditional Chinese BMQ-Specific is a reliable and valid tool for assessing medication beliefs among patients with T2D in Taiwan. It can be effectively incorporated into clinical practice to support patient-provider communication and improve medication adherence.
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.