ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Development and psychometric properties of health care workers' concerns in infectious outbreaks scale.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Design and psychometric properties of a tool to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of health care workers for infodemic management (KAPIM-Tool).BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Development and psychometric validation of the frontline health workers' occupational risk and characteristics in emergencies index (FORCE-index) - The covid Hospital cohort study.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Development and psychometric properties of the nursing ethical decision-making ability scale.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of Iranian health care workers about infodemic management: a cross-sectional descriptive study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Healthcare workers are a crucial workforce; from a moral perspective, understanding their concerns and how to support them is crucial and makes it possible for health services to keep functioning. This study aimed to develop and validate Health Care Workers' Concerns in Infectious Outbreaks Scale (HCWCIOS). Methods: This exploratory sequential mix-method study was employed to design and validate the HCWCIOS. The initial tool was designed after searching similar studies and performing a qualitative phase under the semi-structured approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate the face and content validity. The content validity ratio, content validity index, and item-level content validity index were also calculated. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to evaluate the construct validity. Using a convenient sampling method, 354 Iranian healthcare workers participated in the study. Computing Cronbach's alpha coefficient estimated the internal consistency for HCWCIOS and its subscales. Furthermore assessed was test-retest reliability. Results: The preliminary scale was designed with 57 items. By eliminating nine items in the content validity phase and 12 items during factor analysis, the final 36-item scale was developed on six factors: inadequate preparedness, lack of knowledge, risk perception, affected social relations, work pressure, and absenteeism. These six factors accounted for 46.507% of the total variance. The whole scale's Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.912, and the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.88. Conclusion: A 36-item HCWCIOS has good psychometric properties and is suitable for measuring healthcare workers' concerns during a pandemic.
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.