ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
A medication literacy instrument for older chronic disease patients in China: development and validation.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Experience of Online Group Polarization Relates to University Students' Value-Related Judgments and Choices: The Parallel Mediating Roles of Cognitive Dissonance and Emotional Contagion.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Psychosocial factors associated with medication adherence among older adults with chronic diseases: an ITHBC-informed cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Psychosocial and clinical determinants of medication adherence among elderly chronic disease patients in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Predicting Medication Adherence Among Home-Dwelling Elderly Patients: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedication literacy is crucial for the safe and effective use of drugs among older adults with chronic conditions. However, a validated instrument tailored to older Chinese patients with multiple chronic diseases is lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a medication literacy scale specific to this population.
methodsThis study utilized a cross-sectional design. We aimed to adhere to the COSMIN criteria where feasible.Items were initially derived from the Chinese Pharmaceutical Association’s Medication Behavior Risk KAP Questionnaire, then refined by an expert panel based on Nutbeam’s health literacy model and Pantuzza’s medication literacy components. A pilot survey of 114 older chronic disease patients (aged ≥ 60 years, taking ≥ 2 medications) was used to improve content validity and wording clarity. The main survey employed simple random sampling across primary, secondary, and tertiary hospitals in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. Participants completed an online self-administered questionnaire covering sociodemographics and medication literacy. Extended factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate construct validity. The content validity index (CVL) is used as a quantitative evaluation index of the content validity of the scale. The item level content validity index (i-cvi) and the scale level content validity index (s-cvi) are used to evaluate the content validity of the items and the scale as a whole.
resultsThe exploratory factor analysis extracted 12 common factors with feature values > 1 and factor loadings > 0.5. The total cumulative variance contribution rate is 68.958%. After confirmatory factor analysis, the medication literacy instrument contains 41 items in nine dimensions. The total scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.918), while all subscales exceeded the threshold of 0.7. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the degree of fit of the model was good (χ 2/df = 2.437, IFI = 0.913, TLI = 0.901, CFI = 0.912, and RMSEA = 0.050). We classified participants into two groups: basic medication literacy (total score ≥ 156 or an average score ≥ 3.81) and low medication literacy (total score <156 or an average score <3.81).
conclusionsThe newly developed medication literacy scale exhibits strong psychometric properties and is suitable for assessing medication literacy among Chinese older patients with chronic diseases. It shows promise for use in clinical and public health settings to identify at-risk individuals and guide targeted interventions.
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.