ArticleBMC public health2025
Psychometric characteristics of the Chinese version of the patient participation scale.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to translate the Patient Participation Scale into Chinese and to validate its psychometric characteristics to provide a basis for assessing the level of patient participation in the treatment and care process.
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 477 internal medicine patients from Shanxi and Liaoning Provinces in China, recruited via convenience sampling. The Chinese version of the scale was obtained by translating, back-translating, and using the Delphi method on the original scale. The reliability of the scale was tested by internal consistency, split-half reliability, and retest reliability, and the validity of the scale was measured by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe Chinese version of the Patient Participation Scale (PPS) had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.894, a split-half reliability of 0.703, and the retest reliability of 0.746. The content validity index (S-CVI/AVE) was 0.952, and four factors were extracted from the exploratory factor analysis. In confirmatory factor analysis, the fit indices were as follows: χ
conclusionThe Chinese version of the Patient Participation Scale has ideal reliability and validity. The evaluation results of this scale not only help to improve the quality of medical care but also enhance patients' self-management abilities, promote cooperation and communication between doctors and patients, and provide a solid foundation for future related research and practice.
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.