ArticleBMJ open2026
Korean translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the revised patients' attitudes towards deprescribing questionnaire for caregivers.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate the Korean version of the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire for caregivers.
designCross-sectional validation study.
settingLong-term care facilities (LTCFs) in South Korea.
participants1000 caregivers of older adult residents in LTCFs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and corrected item-total correlations. An alpha-if-item-deleted analysis was conducted to evaluate individual item contributions. Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.881, indicating high internal consistency. Factor-specific reliability was acceptable for the burden (0.781) and appropriateness (0.766) factors but relatively lower for the involvement (0.637) and concerns about stopping (0.563) factors. Despite lower reliability in some subscales and a borderline corrected item-total correlation for question 17 (0.244), all items were retained based on their conceptual importance, statistically significant CFA loading (β=0.283, p<0.001) and consistency with international validation studies. CFA of the four-factor structure yielded marginal but partially acceptable fit indices (Comparative Fit Index=0.830, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.795, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation=0.094 and Standardised Root Mean Square Residual=0.074), with all factor loadings statistically significant (p<0.001), providing partial support for the construct validity of the four-factor structure.
conclusionsThe Korean version of the rPATD questionnaire for caregivers demonstrated good overall internal consistency and acceptable structural validity, though performance varied across subscales. Specifically, the concerns about stopping and involvement subscales showed relatively lower reliability, and the CFA indicated marginal model fit, suggesting that further psychometric refinement may be warranted. Nevertheless, this tool may be valuable for identifying specific barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in this critical population, thereby contributing to medication optimisation and shared decision-making in Korean LTCF settings.
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.