ArticleBMC nursing2026
Cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Korean version of the Intensive care unit Dignified Care Questionnaire (IDCQ).
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) nurses should prioritize patient dignity, but modern ICUs often prioritize efficiency, increasing patients’ psychological distress. A validated tool is needed to measure dignified care in ICUs. Thus, this study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and psychometrically evaluate a Korean version of the Intensive Care Unit Dignified Care Questionnaire (IDCQ) for use among nurses caring for adult ICU patients.
methodsData were collected from 297 ICU nurses at general hospitals or higher-level facilities through an online survey from June to August 2024. The content validity index was evaluated by 10 experts. Exploratory (n = 97) and confirmatory (n = 200) factor analyses were performed, along with assessments of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity, as well as internal consistency reliability.
resultsThe scale-level content validity index/averaging was 0.97. An exploratory factor analysis revealed two sub-factors—relative dignity and absolute dignity—that explained 43.03% of the variance across 17 items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.38 to 0.78. Acceptable model fit was verified by confirmatory factor analysis and convergent and discriminant validity. The Korean version of the IDCQ exhibited a significant correlation with the person-centered critical nursing tool for ICU nurses, and its reliability was supported by a Cronbach’s α of 0.86.
conclusionThis study confirmed the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the IDCQ for assessing dignity in nursing care, making it suitable for Korean ICU nurses. The IDCQ can be utilized for identifying factors associated with dignified care among ICU nurses. More sufficient evidence that the IDCQ is a valid tool for screening dignified care in ICUs can contribute to promoting patient dignity and creating a culture of respect in ICU environments.
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.