ArticlePeerJ2026
Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the perceptions of palliative care instrument in advanced cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in PeerJ, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to validate the Chinese version of the perceptions of palliative care instrument (C-PPCI) for assessing the perceptions and needs of advanced cancer (AC) patients regarding palliative care in China. Methods: The C-PPCI was translated following Brislin's guidelines and tested for psychometric properties through a cross-sectional survey of 537 AC patients. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliability was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Content validity was examined with the content validity index (CVI), and construct validity was explored using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating the C-PPCI with the Edmonton symptom assessment scale (ESAS) and distress thermometer (DT). Results: Of 537 recruited participants, 444 completed the questionnaire (response rate: 82.6%). The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.99. The C-PPCI demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.852 for the total scale (subscale range: 0.820-0.872). Test-retest reliability was good, with an ICC of 0.855 for the total scale (subscale range: 0.751-0.815). EFA yielded a four-domain, nine-factor structure explaining 64% to 75% of the total variance. CFA supported this model with good fit indices (comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.917, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.904, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.072). Concurrent validity was supported by significant correlations with the ESAS and DT for most subscales. Conclusions: The 35-item C-PPCI is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring Chinese AC patients' perceptions and needs regarding palliative care, providing a valuable tool for clinicians to enhance palliative care (PC) utilization in this context.
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.