ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Development and Validation of the CHD-PEBBS: A Scale to Assess Perceived Exercise Benefits and Barriers in Coronary Heart Disease Patients.
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.
- The Role of Early Rehabilitation in Treatment of Acute Pulmonary Embolism-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The level of perceived exercise benefits and barriers is one of the key influencing factors of cardiac exercise rehabilitation (CER). There is a lack of validated tools to assess coronary heart disease (CHD) patients' exercise perception. Purpose: The aim of this study is to develop a scale assessing CHD patients' perceived exercise benefits and barriers (CHD-PEBBS) and test its reliability and validity. Methods: A total of 205 CHD patients were recruited for a cross-sectional survey. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to extract factors, delete items and evaluate construct validity. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient and test-retest reliability were used to test the reliability of the scale. Results: Based on the health belief model, this study developed a perceived benefits and barriers framework. CFA showed that the fit indices (such as χ Conclusion: The CHD-PEBBS shows good reliability and validity, which may be used to evaluate the CER perception level of CHD patients, offering precise targets and pathways for exercise rehabilitation interventions in nursing.
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.