| Title |
Validation of the Chinese version 10-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scale in patients with osteoarthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s110883 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Huiwen Zhao, Wen Luo, Rose C Maly, Jun Liu, Junyi Lee, Yaning Cui |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the 10-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interaction (PEPPI-10) scale in hospitalized patients with severe knee osteoarthritis in the People's Republic of China. Between January and March 2015, the Chinese versions of PEPPI, self-efficacy for exercise scale, osteoporosis self-efficacy scale, and modified fall efficacy scale were applied to assess 110 severe knee osteoarthritis patients who were hospitalized in the second ward of the department of arthroplasty surgery of Tianjin Hospital. The Chinese version of the PEPPI-10 scale had a high coefficient of internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient, 0.907). The score of the Chinese version of PEPPI was weakly correlated with the scores of the Chinese versions of self-efficacy for exercise scale, osteoporosis self-efficacy scale, and modified fall efficacy scale. The Chinese version of the PEPPI-10 scale exhibits sufficient internal consistency and convergent validity in hospitalized patients with severe knee osteoarthritis in the People's Republic of China. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 23% |
| Psychology | 4 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,390,684
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#965
of 1,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,341
of 324,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#44
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.