ArticleBMJ open2025
Development and validation of the musculoskeletal health climate questionnaire.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Orthopedic conditions and treatment patterns among unhoused urban patients: a street medicine study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
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
objectiveTo develop, evaluate and validate the musculoskeletal health climate questionnaire (MHCQ), a multidimensional questionnaire for measuring musculoskeletal health climate.
designCross-sectional test-retest study including systematic scale development and psychometric validation. SETTING AND
participantsThe questionnaire was developed following the best practice recommendations for scale development outlined by Boateng
resultsEFA and CFA supported a four-factor model (supervisor's practices, workplace practices, worker involvement practices and workers' pain practices) with good to excellent fit (comparative fit index, 0.96-0.99; root mean square error of approximation, 0.04-0.06). All scales showed high internal consistency (α=0.80-0.88) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.86-0.92). Associations with musculoskeletal outcomes supported criterion validity. Weak to moderate correlations with the P4Wq subscales (rho<0.60) indicated acceptable discriminant validity.
conclusionsThe MHCQ provides a validated, multidimensional tool to assess workplace climate related to musculoskeletal health. It can support workplace assessments and prevention efforts by capturing shared perceptions of leadership, support, involvement and pain-related norms. Further longitudinal research and the use of objective outcome data are needed to assess predictive validity and strengthen the instrument's applicability across settings.
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.