ArticleJournal of patient experience2026
Development and Validation Study of a Short-Form Version of the Inpatient Experience with Nursing Care Scale.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Inpatient Experience with Nursing Care Scale (IPENCS) is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring patients' experiences with nursing care. This study aimed to develop and validate a short-form of this scale. To ensure the experiment was scientific and rigorous, the short-form IPENCS was developed and validated by both qualitative and quantitative methods in three phases. Phase one is to develop the short version of the instrument. Phase two is to evaluate the validity and reliability of the short-form IPENCS. Phase three is to conduct a cognitive interview (CI) to evaluate the comprehensibility of the short version. 1565 valid questionnaires were received and the response rate was 75.02%. Thirteen items were excluded under four methods of simplification. The 17-item IPENCS showed good reliability and validity. Less completion time and high acceptance about the scale length were also found in the CI. The short-form IPENCS showed acceptable measurement properties which was regarded as an alternative to the original scale to provide rapid assessment and quality improvement suggestions.
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.