ArticlePloS one2026
Cross-cultural adaptation of evidence-based practice measure among Hong Kong healthcare providers.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to adapt and validate an Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) tool for healthcare providers in Hong Kong, addressing the need for reliable and culturally relevant tools.
methodsThe original EBP measure, developed for recent Canadian physiotherapy and occupational therapy graduates, was systematically adapted for use by healthcare providers in Hong Kong following established cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. The adaptation process consisted of two phases: Phase I involved forward and backward translation, expert panel review, and cognitive debriefing interviews with a purposive sample of 36 healthcare providers to ensure linguistic and cultural relevance. In Phase II, the finalized instrument was administered to a convenience sample of 248 registered healthcare providers in Hong Kong. The structure of the adapted instrument remained consistent with the original, comprising two models encompassing six constructs: (1) a formative model (use of EBP and EBP activities) and (2) a reflective model (knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, and resources). Construct validity was assessed using the Rasch model, internal consistency reliability was evaluated with the Person Separation Index (PSI), and differential item functioning (DIF) was examined.
resultsThe formative model only required linguistic modifications. The Rasch model was applied to the reflective component. For knowledge, 45% (5/11) items fit the Rasch model with a chi-square fit statistic (χ² = 17.90, p = 0.268; PSI = 0.84). For self-efficacy, 89% (8/9) items fit the Rasch model with χ² = 26.48, p = 0.33; PSI = 0.93. The attitudes construct was divided into positively and negatively worded subscales due to multidimensionality. The resources construct showed a good fit with χ² = 26.60, p = 0.49; PSI = 0.84. DIF was not observed in the final measures.
conclusionsThe adapted EBP measure demonstrated evidence of construct validity and internal consistency reliability among healthcare providers in Hong Kong. However, further research is needed to assess additional aspects of validity, such as test-retest reliability and responsiveness, as well as to evaluate its applicability in broader healthcare settings.
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.