Exploratory analysis of the French version of the beliefs about medicines questionnaire in patients with severe mental disorders: Factorial structure and reliability in specific populations of schizophrenic, bipolar and depressive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of our study were to explore the factor structure and psychometric properties of the French version of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) in patients with severe mental illness and in specific populations of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. METHODS: A cross-sectional study including patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder was conducted (n = 150). Principal component analysis (PCA), reliability and validity of the French version of the BMQ were performed. RESULTS: PCA revealed a two-factor structure similar to the original structure for the BMQ-Specific scale but only a one-component solution for the BMQ-General scale in both the total sample and the three subgroups. These subscales have satisfactory internal consistency. Validity was supported by the significant correlations of all BMQ subscales with the Drug Attitude Inventory. CONCLUSION: The French version of the BMQ appears as a three-dimensional scale and presents satisfactory psychometric properties for use in patients with severe mental illness as well as specific populations of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder.
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".