ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and psychometric evaluation of a multimedia quality assessment tool for health education and promotion through mixed methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Abstract
Health strategies primarily aim to improve public health, a goal increasingly supported by multimedia resources that enhance learning and audience satisfaction. Despite their significant influence on health literacy, quality standards for producing and disseminating such multimedia materials remain under-researched. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive tool for assessing the quality of multimedia resources in health education and promotion. This methodological study employed a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. It began with a scoping review to evaluate the initial item pool, followed by a qualitative phase utilizing semi-structured interviews with 22 health, media, and communication professionals to generate additional items. The subsequent quantitative phase rigorously assessed the instrument's validity and reliability using McDonald's omega (ω) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Combining findings from the scoping review and qualitative phase (which covered content quality, aesthetics, communication, and effectiveness) resulted in 131 initial items. After rigorous validation, this pool was reduced to a final 64-item questionnaire featuring 10 factors, including text/image/sound quality, layout, interactivity, behavior focus, and credibility. The tool demonstrated excellent reliability, with an overall McDonald's omega of 0.95 and an ICC between raters of 0.86. The developed 64-item questionnaire exhibits acceptable validity and reliability, establishing it as a useful, comprehensive instrument that empowers specialists and stakeholders to enhance the design and assessment of multimedia health education resources, ultimately contributing to improved community health.
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.