ArticleWorld journal of psychiatry2025
Reliability and validity of the preparatory grief scale for use with hemodialysis patients.
Article in World journal of psychiatry, 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
backgroundDuring the gradual decline of physical and social functioning associated with end-stage renal disease, patients might experience a premonition of impending death, resulting in a series of pre-mourning grief responses called preparatory grief. The preparatory grief in advanced cancer patients (PGAC) scale is the most widely used preparatory grief scale for patients on hemodialysis in China.
aimTo verify the reliability and validity of the PGAC scale in patients on hemodialysis.
methodsIn total, 327 patients undergoing regular hemodialysis in the blood purification center of three grade-A tertiary hospitals in Guangdong and Guizhou provinces were selected by convenience sampling. The assessment was administered using the general information questionnaire and the Chinese version of PGAC. SPSS 25.0 and Amos 24.0 were used for item analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), convergent validity, and internal consistency reliability estimation.
resultsIn the modified Chinese version of PGAC, 7 dimensions covering 27 total items were retained. CFA revealed a good fit of the factor model (chi-square degree of freedom = 2.056, standardized root mean square residual = 0.0479, root mean square error of approximation = 0.0570
conclusionThe modified PGAC has good reliability and validity, and it can effectively measure preparatory grief in patients on hemodialysis.
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.