ArticleACR open rheumatology2026
Development and Validation of the Brief Support Group Leader Self-Efficacy Scale Among Scleroderma Peer Support Group Leaders.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOur objective was to develop a brief Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale (Brief-SGLSS) that maintains the core content and measurement properties of the full 32-item SGLSS among systemic sclerosis (SSc) support group leaders.
methodsDevelopment and validation involved four steps conducted by researchers and a Support Group Advisory Team of people with SSc: (1) item content assessment and prioritization, including a Delphi process; (2) item analysis and preliminary selection, including analysis of SGLSS measurement properties using Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network-Scleroderma-Support group Leader Education (SPIN-SSLED) trial data and a data-driven item resampling process; (3) advisory team input to select final Brief-SGLSS items; and (4) comparison of convergent validity and trial change data of the Brief-SGLSS and full SGLSS.
resultsItems were categorized into six content themes. Two Delphi rounds resulted in one item excluded from consideration. A 6-item Brief-SGLSS was selected at the consensus advisory panel meeting based on the resampling process and content and statistical considerations. The Pearson correlation of the Brief-SGLSS and full SGLSS was 0.96. The standardized mean difference between intervention (n = 74) and waitlist (n = 72) groups in the SPIN-SSLED trial immediately post intervention was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.27) for the full 32-item SGLSS and 0.93 (95% CI 0.58-1.27) for the Brief-SGLSS. Convergent validity of the Brief-SGLSS and full SGLSS with other measures was similar.
conclusionThe 6-item SGLSS is shorter and more feasibly implemented than the full SGLSS and maintains similar measurement properties.
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.