ArticlePloS one2026
Development and psychometric evaluation of an assessment tool assessing Pharmacists' knowledge and practice on antimicrobial prophylaxis among cancer patients.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite advancements in cancer therapy, opportunistic infections remain a significant obstacle to successful patient outcomes. This highlights the necessity for research into the role of antimicrobial prophylaxis in preventing opportunistic infections within oncology care. Therefore, this study aims to develop and validate a questionnaire that assesses pharmacists' knowledge and practices regarding antimicrobial prophylaxis in cancer patients.
methodThe research was conducted in 2 phases. Phase I focused on questionnaire development, which included assessing content validity using face validity, Delphi technique, and pilot testing. An initial questionnaire comprising 53 items was generated. The questionnaire was then distributed, and the data were collected from Survey Monkey. Phase II involved the psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire's validity and reliability. Data analysis was performed using Item Response Theory (IRT), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Cronbach's alpha to establish construct validity and reliability.
resultThe finalized questionnaire consists of 43 items, comprising 29 knowledge and 14 practice items. IRT analysis was applied to knowledge items, with acceptable discrimination (≥0.25), difficulty (-3-3), and guessing (≤0.4) parameters. Eight items were removed from the knowledge domain based on IRT analysis. Furthermore, EFA has shown high correlation between items and their respective factor, with each receiving an acceptable factor loading of >0.4. However, one domain has a reliability value of <0.6, hence, the domain was removed from the practice domain. Overall, Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 indicates strong internal consistency among the questionnaire items.
conclusionThe results of this study have validated that the developed questionnaire possesses exceptional psychometric qualities, confirming its accuracy and reliability to evaluate pharmacists' knowledge and practice towards antimicrobial prophylaxis in oncology care. The validated tool enables future research and targeted educational interventions to improve pharmacists' skills in managing infection risks for cancer patients.
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.