ArticleBMJ open2026
Translation and validation of the Norwegian ABCD Risk Questionnaire to assess cardiovascular disease knowledge and risk perception prior to myocardial infarction.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to translate the Attitudes and Beliefs about Cardiovascular Disease (ABCD) Risk Questionnaire into Norwegian and assess its psychometric properties among individuals with a history of myocardial infarction.
designThe study adopted a cross-sectional design. The original questionnaire was translated into Norwegian and adapted for use in the target population. The Norwegian version was pilot tested in a sample of patients and then validated in the target population.
settingNorway, using a web-based solution to collect data. PATIENTS: A random sample of Norwegian individuals <85 years old with a history of myocardial infarction and no cardiovascular disease before their first myocardial infarction.
main outcome measuresInternal consistency was tested using Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Difficulty and discrimination indices were determined for the Knowledge scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess structural validity of the Risk scale.
resultsData for 746 participants (mean age, SD: 66.4, 10.3 years), of which 26.9% females were analysed. The Norwegian version showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.73-0.79) but modest test-retest reliability (ICC 0.35-0.64). The Knowledge scale showed moderate difficulty (0.39-0.84) and good discrimination power (0.44-0.60). The one-factor model CFA for each scale achieved acceptable fit, and the four-factor model showed moderate fit (root mean square error of approximation=0.05, standardised root mean squared residual=0.07, Comparative Fit Index=0.91, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.88).
conclusionsThe Norwegian translated ABCD Risk Questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and can be considered a useful instrument for assessing knowledge and risk perception among individuals with a history of myocardial infarction.
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.