ArticleBMC psychology2025
Development and psychometric evaluation of the cancer bio-psycho-social-spiritual comprehensive assessment scale.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
Abstract
backgroundA comprehensive assessment of the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs of cancer patients is crucial for holistic palliative care, yet a scientifically validated tool tailored for the Chinese population is lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate the Cancer Bio-psycho-social-spiritual Comprehensive Assessment Scale (CBCAS) for cancer patients across all disease stages.
methodsThe CBCAS was developed in three phases: (1) item generation based on a literature review and palliative care framework; (2) refinement through a two-round Delphi consultation with 15 experts; and (3) psychometric evaluation involving 400 cancer patients from two tertiary hospitals. We conducted item analysis, assessed content validity and internal consistency, and performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
resultsThe final 54-item CBCAS encompasses nine factors identified via EFA, which collectively explain 60.00% of the total variance. Both item-level and scale-level content validity indices (I-CVI/S-CVI) reached 1.00. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91.
conclusionsThe CBCAS is a valid and reliable instrument for holistically assessing the bio-psycho-social-spiritual status of cancer patients in China. Its application can facilitate personalized care planning and early palliative interventions by providing a comprehensive understanding of patient needs.
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.