ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Acceptance Scale for Traditional Chinese Medicine Techniques in Cancer Patients: Development and Validation.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese Medicine techniques have unique advantages in complementary cancer treatment, and their clinical application largely relies on patient acceptance. Scientific assessment of patients' acceptance of Traditional Chinese Medicine techniques is a key step in promoting their clinical application. However, no scientifically validated tools exist to assess cancer patients' acceptance of Traditional Chinese Medicine techniques. Purpose: To develop and validate the acceptance scale for Traditional Chinese Medicine techniques in cancer patients. Patients and Methods: The study involved scale development and psychometric testing. Items were generated via conceptual definition, literature review, and qualitative research based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Two rounds of expert review and a pilot study refined the scale and assessed content validity. Psychometric evaluation was conducted on 370 cancer patients, including item analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, validity assessments, and reliability testing. Results: The finalized 25-item scale has four dimensions: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, behavioral intention, and apprehensions about usage. Content validity indices ranged from 0.933 to 1.000. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four common factors, accounting for 66.6% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit (χ Conclusion: This scale is a reliable and effective tool for assessing cancer patients' acceptance of Traditional Chinese Medicine techniques. It provides guidance for clinical practice and research involving these techniques.
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.