IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0230131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire among cardiovascular patients and medical students

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Seweryn Karbownik
  • Beata Jankowska-Polańska
  • Robert Horne
  • Karol Maksymilian Górski
  • Edward Kowalczyk
  • Janusz Szemraj

Abstract

Background: The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) is the leading tool intended to assess the cognitive representation of medication, however, the validated Polish version of the questionnaire is lacking. Aims: To adapt the original BMQ tool to the Polish language (BMQ-PL) and to validate it. Materials and methods: The BMQ was adapted to Polish according to widely accepted guidelines. A total of 311 cardiovascular in- and outpatients as well as medical students taking chronic medication were surveyed to assess data-to-model fit and internal consistency of the measure. The criterion-related validity was determined with the use of Polish version of the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were used, as well as general linear modeling. Results: The BMQ-PL exhibited the same factorial structure as the original questionnaire and all the items loaded on their expected factors. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was satisfactory in the group of cardiovascular patients (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.64 to 0.82 and McDonald’s omega from 0.90 to 0.91). There were significant correlations in the predicted directions between all BMQ-PL subscales and the measure of drug adherence in cardiovascular outpatients, but not in inpatients. Medical students may conceptualize the beliefs about medicines in a different way; as a result, a modified version of the BMQ-PL-General, suitable for medically-educated people, was proposed. Conclusion: The BMQ-PL exhibits satisfactory proof of validity to be used among cardiovascular patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Seweryn Karbownik & Beata Jankowska-Polańska & Robert Horne & Karol Maksymilian Górski & Edward Kowalczyk & Janusz Szemraj, 2020. "Adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire among cardiovascular patients and medical students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230131
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230131&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0230131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronald Hambleton & Liane Patsula, 1998. "Adapting Tests for Use in Multiple Languages and Cultures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 153-171, November.
    2. Luke Holman & Megan L Head & Robert Lanfear & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    2. David Effelsberg & Marc Solga & Jochen Gurt, 2014. "Transformational Leadership and Follower’s Unethical Behavior for the Benefit of the Company: A Two-Study Investigation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 81-93, March.
    3. Daiping Wang & Wolfgang Forstmeier & Mihai Valcu & Niels J Dingemanse & Martin Bulla & Christiaan Both & Renée A Duckworth & Lynna Marie Kiere & Patrik Karell & Tomáš Albrecht & Bart Kempenaers, 2019. "Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Neusa Sica Rocha & Mick J. Power & Donald M. Bushnell & Marcelo P. Fleck, 2012. "Cross-Cultural Evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF Domains in Primary Care Depressed Patients Using Rasch Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 41-55, January.
    5. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    6. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Alfredo Di Tillio & Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2017. "Persuasion Bias in Science: Can Economics Help?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 266-304, October.
    8. Angelo Braga Mendonça & Eliane Ramos Pereira & Carinne Magnago & Pedro Gilson da Silva & Diva Cristina Morett Leão & Rose Mary Costa Rosa Andrade Silva & Karina Cardoso Meira, 2021. "Distress and Spiritual Well-Being in Brazilian Patients Initiating Chemotherapy during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Dirk De Clercq & Dave Bouckenooghe & Usman Raja & Ganna Matsyborska, 2014. "Unpacking the Goal Congruence–Organizational Deviance Relationship: The Roles of Work Engagement and Emotional Intelligence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 695-711, November.
    10. Neves, Kleber & Amaral, Olavo Bohrer, 2019. "Addressing selective reporting of experiments – the case for predefined exclusion criteria," MetaArXiv a8gu5, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.