ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Italian Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Cardiac Distress Inventory in Patients with Recent Cardiac Events.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
backgroundAcute cardiac events trigger multifaceted psychological responses captured by the construct of cardiac distress, a persistent negative emotional state involving multiple psychosocial domains. The Cardiac Distress Inventory (CDI) assesses this construct, but no Italian version exists. This study aimed to translate the CDI and assess its psychometric properties.
methodsAfter translation and back-translation, face validity was assessed with five patients and content validity with healthcare professionals. The CDI was administered to 293 patients who experienced a recent cardiac event from two Italian centers. Missing data were handled with multiple imputations. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA; principal axis factoring, oblimin rotation) assessed factorial structure. Criterion validity was assessed using correlations with Emotion Thermometers, Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) and Kessler-6 (K6); ROC analysis assessed discriminative accuracy and the optimal cut-off.
resultsThe questionnaire demonstrated good face validity and suboptimal content validity (CVI-S/Ave = 0.72). EFA revealed a five-factor structure explaining 54% of the variance: "Role Change and Adaptation to Disease", "Emotional Overwhelm, "Cognitive Challenges", "Social Disconnection", and "Health System Challenges". The final 46-item version showed good internal consistency (ω = 0.857-0.926) and discriminative accuracy (AUC = 0.84), with an optimal cut-off of 36 (sensitivity 71%, specificity 84%).
conclusionsThe current study provides preliminary evidence for the validity of the Italian CDI. Additional studies are needed to confirm the proposed structures and clinical cut-offs.
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.