Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42058310›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Development and application of a scale for older patients' perceived ageist behavior of medical staff in China.

Jingpin Ren, Yue Wang, Lurong Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jingpin RenSchool of Management, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yue WangDeyang Hospital Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Deyang, China.
Lurong LiuSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate the Older Patients' Perceived Ageist Behavior of Medical Staff (OPABMS) Scale, assess the current status of OPABMS, and explore the association between OPABMS and older patients' loyalty (OPL), thereby providing an evidence base for reducing ageism and improving patient retention. Methods: The OPABMS scale was developed through a multi-stage process involving literature review, expert consultation, in-depth interviews, and pilot survey, after which item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion validity, reliability analysis, measurement invariance, and common method bias testing were performed to evaluate its psychometric properties. A total of 1,010 older patients who had visited medical institutions in the past year were recruited as a convenience sample. Data were collected using a sociodemographic questionnaire, the OPABMS Scale, the Patient Loyalty Scale and the Patient Satisfaction Scale. Results: The scale comprises 13 items grouped into three dimensions: Avoidance Behavior (AB), Perfunctory Behaviors (PB) and Complaint Behavior (CB). The overall mean score for OPABMS was 2.08 ( Conclusion: The OPABMS Scale demonstrates satisfactory reliability and validity and can thus serve as an appropriate instrument for measuring OPABMS. Older patients perceived a slightly below-moderate level of ageist behaviors from medical staff. These perceived behaviors were negatively associated with OPL. Health authorities, medical institutions, and medical staff should pay greater attention to OPABMS and its potential negative implications.

Indexed as

ageismageist behaviormedical staffolder patientspatient loyalty

Identifiers

PMID42058310
PMCPMC13121340

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.