ArticlePloS one2025
Development and validation of an asthma self-knowledge questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValidated questionnaires for adequately assessing knowledge about asthma are scarce. Thus, the primary objective of the present study was to develop and validate an asthma self-knowledge questionnaire, based on international recommendations on the disease. The secondary objectives were to compare knowledge about asthma between asthmatic patients and non-asthmatic individuals; assessing whether asthma affects the level of self-knowledge of the disease and what factors may be associated with poorer self-knowledge of the disease.
methodsThe Bronchial Asthma Self-Knowledge Questionnaire was developed, and validation studies were performed: logical or apparent validity, content validity, construct validity; internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha test), test-retest or reproducibility, in a face-to-face survey with 104 asthmatic patients and 131 non-asthmatic individuals (n = 235). Other questionnaires were also applied: Mini Mental State Examination (in individuals over 65 years of age), Depression Scales (CES-D for individuals under 65 and GDS for individuals over 65 years of age), Demographic Questionnaire, Health Literacy, and the Characterization Questionnaire for bronchial asthma.
resultsRegarding development of the questionnaire, content validity, determined using I-CVI allowed reducing the questionnaire to 21 items. The test proved to have an acceptable value of in-ternal consistency and the data were considered as normally distributed; the questionnaire presented good temporal stability, by test-retest, although Spearman rho values were significantly stronger in the asthmatic group. Finally, confirmatory factorial analysis yielded acceptable values for PCFI and PGFI, as well as a satisfactory value for RMSEA. In terms of the application of the questionnaire, both groups under study (asthmatics and non-asthmatics) showed statistically significant differences in replies of self-knowledge questionnaire items. Finally, factors such as health literacy disturbances seem to marginally influence self-knowledge of bronchial asthma.
conclusionsThe developed and validated questionnaire showed adequate psychometric robustness. In terms of construct validity, by known group (bronchial asthma) validity, the test was able to discriminate between patients with asthma and participants without asthma, regarding self-knowledge of the disease.
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.