The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: The development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication
Abstract
This paper presents a novel method for assessing cognitive representations of medication: the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). The BMQ comprises two sections: the BMQ-Specific which assesses representations of medication prescribed for personal use and the BMQ-General which assesses beliefs about medicines in general. The pool of test items was derived from themes identified in published studies and from interviews with chronically ill patients. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the test items resulted in a logically coherent, 18 item, 4-factor structure which was stable across various illness groups. The BMQ-Specific comprises two 5-item factors assessing beliefs about the necessity of prescribed medication (Specific-Necessity) and concerns about prescribed medication based on beliefs about the danger of dependence and long-term toxicity and the disruptive effects of medication (Specific-Concerns). The BMQ-General comprises two 4-item factors assessing beliefs that medicines are harmful, addictive, poisons which should not be taken continuously (General-Horn) and that medicines are overused by doctors (General-Overuse). The two sections of the BMQ can be used in combination or separately. The paper describes the development of the BMQ scales and presents data supporting their reliability and their criterion-related and discriminant validity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,867
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
The Health Belief Model: a decade later.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818401100101 · Cited by 8,437
Concurrent and Predictive Validity of a Self-reported Measure of Medication Adherence
Morisky, D. E., Green, L. W., & Levine, D. M. (1986) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198601000-00007 · Cited by 5,317
The Health Belief Model and Preventive Health Behavior
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817400200405 · Cited by 3,643
An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis
Kline, P. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315788135 · Cited by 3,309
Norussis, H. (1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,704
An easy guide to factor analysis
Gudjonsson, G. (1994) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90040-x · Cited by 1,938
Leventhal, H., Diefenbach, M., & Leventhal, E. A. (1992) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/bf01173486 · Cited by 1,573
Cited by
The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire
Broadbent, E., Petrie, K. J., Main, J., & Weinman, J. (2006) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.10.020 · Cited by 3,431
Self-citationHorne, R., & Weinman, J. (1999) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(99)00057-4 · Cited by 2,201
Self-citationLeventhal, H., Phillips, L. A., & Burns, E. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-016-9782-2 · Cited by 1,350
Horne, R., Chapman, S. C. E., Parham, R., Freemantle, N., Forbes, A., & Cooper, V. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080633 · Cited by 1,174
Self-citationAndrade, R. J., Chalasani, N., Björnsson, E. S., Suzuki, A., Kullak-Ublick, G. A., Watkins, P. B., Devarbhavi, H., Merz, M., Lucena, M. I., Kaplowitz, N., et al. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0105-0 · Cited by 924
Metadata
- Authors
- Horne, R., Weinman, J., & Hankins, M.
- Venue
- Psychology & Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-24
- ISSN
- 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-8321
- OpenAlex
- W2038795551
- Cited by
- 2,372
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 9.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: The development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08870449908407311
- The paper
- Horne, R., Weinman, J., & Hankins, M. (1999). The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: The development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychology & Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449908407311
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
