↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of the cancer self-perceived discrimination scale for Chinese cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and validation of the cancer self-perceived discrimination scale for Chinese cancer patients
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0984-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin-sen Feng, Xin-yue Li, Hong-rong Wang, Jing-jing Zhan, Dong Chen, Yu-feng Wang

Abstract

To develop a Cancer Self-Perceived Discrimination Scale (CSPDS) for Chinese cancer patients and to assess its reliability and validity. A total of 178 patients were recruited and the classical test theory was used to develop the CSPDS. Item analysis was adapted to improve the preliminary version of the CSPDS, then the reliability, the validity and the acceptability of the final version of CSPDS were assessed. This CSPDS contained 14 items classified into 3 subscales: social withdrawal with 7 items, stigma with 4 and self-deprecation with 3. Good validity (χ2/df = 1.216, GFI = 0.935, AGFI = 0.903, I-CVIs> 0.80) and good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.829, Spearman-Brown coefficient = 0.827, test-retest reliability coefficient = 0.944) were found. The completion time was 6.06 ± 1.80 min. Participants who were female and reported poor self-rated health tended to have higher CSPDS scores (P <  0.05). The results indicated that this CSPDS could be used to assess the level of self-perceived discrimination and to preliminarily screen perceived discrimination among Chinese cancer patients, especially in Southwest China. It may provide a basis for scientific assessment of targeted patient education, psychological counseling, social interventions, and psychotherapy in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Psychology 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 16 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,987,106
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,519
of 2,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,092
of 331,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#58
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,189 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 331,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.