ArticleBMC public health2026
Development of a women's health environmental pollution awareness scale and analysis of its psychometric properties.
Article in BMC public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimEnvironmental pollution represents an important threat to women's health due to its potential effects on reproductive, maternal, hormonal, and general health outcomes. This study aimed to develop the Environmental Pollution Awareness Scale for Women's Health (EPAS-WH) and evaluate its psychometric properties.
methodsThis methodological study was conducted with three independent samples consisting of a total of 760 women (Sample A: M age = 24.4 ± 7.8; Sample B: M age = 25.4 ± 8.7; Sample C: M age = 24.6 ± 8.2). The scale development process included item generation, expert evaluation, content validity analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability analyses, test-retest reliability, and criterion-related validity assessment. Content validity was evaluated using the Lawshe technique. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients, while criterion-related validity was examined through correlations with the Eco-Anxiety Scale.
resultsContent validity analysis supported the relevance of the scale items (CVI = 0.889). EFA revealed a unidimensional structure consisting of 8 items, explaining 66.5% of the total variance. CFA confirmed the single-factor structure and demonstrated good model fit. The EPAS-WH showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.940; McDonald's ω = 0.932), strong construct reliability (CR = 0.93), and adequate convergent validity (AVE = 0.63). Test-retest analysis demonstrated good temporal stability (ICC = 0.87). In addition, significant positive correlations between EPAS-WH and eco-anxiety scores supported criterion-related validity.
conclusionThe EPAS-WH is a valid, reliable, and psychometrically robust measurement instrument for assessing women's awareness of environmental pollution-related health risks. The scale may be used in research, public health practices, and educational interventions aimed at evaluating and improving environmental health awareness among women.
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.