ArticleBMC nursing2024
Translation and psychometric validation of the Patient Participation Culture Tool for healthcare workers in Chinese nursing context.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of patient safety culture scale in medication administration.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Comparative study between the Patient Participation Culture Tool and the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture using retrospective data from 2014 to 2021.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPromoting patient participation stands as a global priority in nursing care. Currently, there is a lack of a standardized tool to assess the culture of patient participation from the perspective of nurses in China.
aimsTo translate and examine the validity and reliability of the Patient Participation Culture Tool for healthcare workers (PaCT-HCW) on general hospital wards in Chinese nursing context.
methodsA cross-sectional research study was conducted among 812 nurses. Brislin's recommendations were adhered to during the translation of the scale. Validity was assessed using construct validity, content validity, and face validity. Split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency reliability were used to evaluate dependability. The study was guided and reported following the STROBE checklist and recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing.
resultsThe Chinese version of PaCT-HCW (the PaCT-HCW-C) exhibits good face validity and content validity. A rigorous exploratory factor analyse verified a six-factor (competence, support, perceived lack of time, information sharing and dialogue, response to questions and acceptance of a new role) scale structure with a cumulative variance contribution of the factors with 44 items of 68.840%. With a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.962, split-half reliability of 0.866, and intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.989, the instrument demonstrates great reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis results validated the consistency of the six factors with the structure of the PaCT-HCW-C scale.
conclusionsThe 44-item PaCT-HCW-C is a valid and reliable instrument with satisfactory psychometric properties. It could serve as a tool for assessing the effectiveness of international programs aimed at fostering patient participation from the perspective of nurses, while also providing insights from China's practical experiences.
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.