ArticleNursing & health sciences2026
Development and Validation of the ClimHealth-K: A Scale for Assessing Perceived Knowledge and Awareness of Climate Change-Related Health Effects.
Article in Nursing & health sciences, 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
Climate change poses a significant threat to human health and is linked to various direct and indirect outcomes, including infectious diseases, heat-related illnesses, and other climate-sensitive conditions. However, standardized tools assessing perceived knowledge and awareness of climate-related health effects remain limited. This methodological study aimed to develop and validate the ClimHealth-K scale for assessing university students' perceived climate-health knowledge. The sample included 449 students from a public university in Türkiye. Items were generated through literature review and evaluated by seven experts to establish content validity using the Davis method. Psychometric analyses included exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability testing. Item-level content validity index values ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the scale-level index was 0.98. Exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure explaining 62.67% of total variance, and confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit (χ
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.