ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Development and psychometric validation of the Physician Occupational Stigma Perception Scale among Chinese physicians.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Occupational stigma is increasingly recognized as an important psychosocial concern for physicians, yet no instrument specifically measures how Chinese physicians perceive negative public evaluations of their profession. This study aimed to develop and psychometrically evaluate the Physician Occupational Stigma Perception Scale (POSPS) for Chinese physicians. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was used. The POSPS was developed and administered in Chinese. Candidate items were generated from semi-structured interviews with 23 frontline physicians and relevant existing measures, and were subsequently refined through two rounds of Delphi consultation and target-population pretesting. A pilot survey of 193 physicians was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with Horn's parallel analysis guiding factor retention. The resulting structure was examined in an independent sample of 312 physicians using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and nomological validity were also assessed. Results: EFA yielded a six-item, two-factor solution comprising Medical Ethics Stigma Perception (ME) and Medical Skills and Services Stigma Perception (MSS). The correlated two-factor CFA model showed good fit. Cronbach's alpha was 0.849 for ME and 0.862 for MSS, and McDonald's omega was 0.851 and 0.862, respectively. Composite reliability values were 0.852 and 0.866, and average variance extracted values were 0.659 and 0.684. The latent correlation between ME and MSS was 0.496, supporting their related but distinct nature. Both dimensions were positively correlated with emotional exhaustion and ambivalent occupational identification and negatively correlated with job satisfaction, providing evidence of nomological validity. Conclusion: The six-item POSPS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties for assessing occupational stigma perceptions among Chinese physicians. Its two subscales provide a concise, contextually grounded measure for research on physicians' occupational experiences and well-being in China.
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.