ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Validation of the CONSULT-PSYCHIATR Scale: reasons for reluctance to seek psychiatric consultation among workers in Peru.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Workers may be reluctant to attend psychiatric consultation because of stigma, interpersonal concerns, and practical barriers. In Peru, brief instruments specifically designed to assess these reasons in working populations are limited. This study examined the content validity, internal structure, and internal consistency of a Peruvian scale assessing reasons why workers are reluctant to attend consultations with a psychiatrist. Methods: An instrumental study was conducted in Peru. Item development was informed by a literature review and expert input. An initial 10-item version was evaluated by 20 experts for relevance, representativeness, and clarity using Aiken's V. After a pilot test, the questionnaire was administered to 3001 workers from several Peruvian departments using non-random sampling. Item distribution was examined using descriptive statistics, skewness, excess kurtosis, floor and ceiling effects, and constant-response patterns. The sample was randomly divided into exploratory and confirmatory subsamples. A polychoric exploratory factor analysis was conducted in the exploratory subsample, followed by confirmatory analyses in the independent confirmatory subsample. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha, ordinal alpha, and ordinal omega total. Results: Most Aiken's V coefficients were 0.70 or higher, with only one lower value for the representativeness of item 9. The 10-item version showed adequate item distributions, although 46.95% of participants provided constant responses across all items, prompting sensitivity analyses. Exploratory factor analysis supported a one-factor structure, explaining 80.96% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.8425 to 0.9365. This structure remained stable after excluding constant-response patterns. In the confirmatory subsample, the 10-item one-factor model showed high standardized loadings and favorable CFI, TLI, and SRMR values, although RMSEA was less favorable and was interpreted jointly with the remaining indices. Reliability estimates were high in both the main and sensitivity analyses. Discussion: The CONSULT-PSYCHIATR is a brief 10-item instrument with evidence of content validity, internal structure, and internal consistency for assessing perceived reasons why workers in Peru may be reluctant to attend psychiatric consultation. Although the findings are encouraging, further studies are needed to examine its performance in other populations and settings and to assess additional sources of validity evidence.
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.