ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2026
Health status in patients with limited health literacy; development and validity of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire graphic (CCQg).
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) often experience limited health literacy, hampering health status assessment via standard questionnaires like the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). We aimed to develop and validate a modified, literacy-sensitive version, the CCQgraphic (CCQg), for all patients with COPD co-designed with a large stakeholder group. CCQ items were rephrased and complemented with graphics, followed by optimization through semi-structured interviews with patients with limited health literacy. In adequate health literacy (n = 64) concordance of CCQg and CCQ was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). Correlation with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88). Agreement showed a mean bias of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.10-0.34, P < 0.001) with higher scores on mental and functional domains compared to the original CCQ. Test-retest reliability in limited health literacy (n = 25) was high, CCC = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86-0.97). The majority (88%) rated the CCQg as equal or better to the original. The CCQg offers a validated, literacy-sensitive tool, narrowing the gap in health status assessment for patients with COPD with varying literacy skills.
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.