Health‐related empowerment in cancer: Validity of scales from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Empowerment refers to an individual's feelings of being able to manage the challenges of the cancer experience and of having a sense of control over one's life. However, empowerment questionnaires that have been validated for the cancer setting are lacking. The objective of this study was to validate scales from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ), which assesses the effects of health education programs among individuals with chronic conditions. The heiQ scales Social integration and support, Health service navigation, Constructive attitudes and approaches, Skill and technique acquisition, and Emotional distress were identified as key dimensions of empowerment for the cancer context. METHODS: Adults who were diagnosed with cancer < 3 years earlier were recruited from a population-based cancer registry and from the Canadian Cancer Society's information and peer-support programs. The 731 participants completed a mailed questionnaire, which included the heiQ scales, related constructs, and demographics. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach α values, and validity was determined using confirmatory factor analysis and scale correlations with related constructs (self-efficacy, intrusive thoughts about cancer, and mental and physical health). RESULTS: The hypothesized 5-factor model fit the data adequately (chi-square statistic, 528.17; degrees of freedom, 265; root mean square error of approximation, .04; non-normed fit index, .99; comparative fit index, 1.00; standardized root mean residual, .05). Factor loadings were high (23 of 25 were ≥ .70), and the factor correlations indicated separate but related constructs. Cronbach α values ranged from .75 to .90. A priori hypotheses about the correlations between heiQ scales and related constructs all were supported. CONCLUSIONS: The current results support the validity of these 5 heiQ scales as generic measures of health-related empowerment in the cancer setting. These scales could fill an important gap in the measures currently available to evaluate proximal effects of support interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".