ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Design and Validation of a Scale of Knowledge of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Lifestyle after Coronary Event.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a Mobile Health App (eMOTIVA) Regarding Compliance With Cardiac Rehabilitation Guidelines in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of an Interactive mHealth App (EVITE) in Improving Lifestyle After a Coronary Event: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- CONNECT Platform to Increase Diverse Engagement and Enrollment in Cardiovascular Clinical Research: Rationale, Design, and Lessons Learned in Early Implementation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Translate and psychometric evaluation of the scale of knowledge of cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyle after coronary event.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is important for health professionals to have tools available to assess patients' knowledge of lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors after they have suffered a coronary event and determine whether educational interventions are effective. This study aims to design and validate a scale to evaluate this knowledge.
methodsFour-phase instrument design: (A) Conceptual review. (B) Review by experts. (C) Pilot test-retest. (D) Psychometric validation of the final version of the questionnaire with 24 items. A panel of experts performed the content validity. The reliability of the scale was measured using Cronbach's alpha score and criterion validity was evaluated by comparing the total scores for knowledge obtained by the participants among the three education level groups. The construct and dimensional structure validity were assessed using exploratory factor analysis.
resultsA total of 143 people participated, 30 in the pilot study and 113 (68% male, 60.2 ± 9 years) in the psychometric validation of version 3 of the scale. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.887 was reached for this version. The factor analysis showed that the items were distributed into five factors that explained 57% of the variance. Significant differences were observed in the level of knowledge among the patients of the three levels of education (low, moderate and high) (99.20 ± 11.93, 105.92 ± 7.85, 109.78 ± 8.76 points,
conclusionsThe scale presents psychometric properties that are evidence of its reliability and validity. The relationship demonstrated between the level of knowledge and age, sex and level of education shows the importance of emphasizing educational interventions for elderly people and those with a lower level of education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.