ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of the Intradialytic Hypotension-Related Health Beliefs Scale for Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
Purpose: To develop the Intradialytic Hypotension (IDH)-Related Health Beliefs Scale for patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) and preliminarily evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: A multistage scale-development study combined literature review, patient interviews, Delphi consultation, and pretesting. Convenience sampling recruited 451 patients from four tertiary hospitals in China. Before item analysis, participants were randomly divided into development (n=226) and validation (n=225) samples. The development sample was used for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), whereas the validation sample was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity. Content validity, known-groups validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and score distributions were also examined. Results: The final scale contained 29 items across four domains: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy. EFA supported a four-factor structure explaining 65.29% of item variance. After two content-justified post hoc within-domain residual correlations were specified, CFA fit was acceptable (CFI=0.978, TLI=0.976, RMSEA=0.064, SRMR=0.061). The scale-level content validity index using the average method (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.969. Across domains, Cronbach's α ranged from 0.794 to 0.922, McDonald's ω from 0.805 to 0.961, and 2-week intraclass correlation coefficients from 0.839 to 0.894. Three of six prespecified known-groups hypotheses were supported. The self-efficacy domain showed a 34.37% ceiling effect. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first patient-reported instrument developed specifically to assess IDH-related health beliefs in this population. The findings provide preliminary evidence for its four-domain structure, reliability, and validity. Scores should be calculated and interpreted by domain. The scale may help identify priorities for patient education and risk communication but cannot replace objective clinical assessment. Independent multicenter and longitudinal validation is required before routine use.
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.