Cited by 706Health Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCancer survivorship and care

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire

Open access
Broadbent, Elizabeth, Wilkes, Carissa, Koschwanez, Heidi, Weinman, John, Norton, Sam, Petrie, Keith J.·2015·Psychology & Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to systematically review the use and performance of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief IPQ). DESIGN: Electronic databases were searched for papers administering the Brief IPQ published in peer-reviewed journals. Data were extracted from the results for meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use by illness population, country, language and study design. The questionnaire's concurrent validity, predictive validity, sensitivity to change, discriminant validity and mean scores for different populations were summarised. RESULTS: The review included 188 papers. The Brief IPQ has been administered to patients from age 8 to over 80, with a wide range of illnesses, in 26 languages from 36 countries. Pooled correlations between illness perceptions and depression, anxiety, blood glucose levels and quality of life were consistent with previous research and theory (range .25-.49 for consequences, identity and emotional representations; -.12 to -.27 for personal control). All items were able to predict some outcomes up to one-year follow-up. Each subscale demonstrated sensitivity to change after intervention in randomised controlled trials with the personal control and causal items showing most frequent change. CONCLUSIONS: The Brief IPQ is widely used and has good psychometric properties. More studies should include and analyse the causal item.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870446.2015.1070851

Cites

215 of 215 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broadbent, E., Wilkes, C., Koschwanez, H., Weinman, J., Norton, S., & Petrie, K. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Broadbent, Elizabeth
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2015-08-26
Volume
30
Issue
11
Pages
1361-1385
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W1617647287
Cited by
706
References
215
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 2
FWCI
14.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
The University of Auckland (Summer Studentship)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, illness perception, psychometric properties, concurrent validity, predictive validity, sensitivity to change, discriminant validity, personal control, depression, anxiety, quality of life, blood glucose
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic Self Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review