ArticleJournal of nursing measurement2018
Development and Psychometric Testing of the Provider Co-Management Index: Measuring Nurse Practitioner-Physician Co-Management.
Article in Journal of nursing measurement, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of funding models on the integration of registered nurses in primary health care teams: protocol for a multi-phase mixed-methods study in Canada.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Shared decision-making in the BREATHE asthma intervention trial: A research protocol.Journal of advanced nursing · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeProvider co-management has emerged in practice to alleviate demands of larger, more complex patient panels, yet no tools exist to measure nurse practitioner (NP)-physician co-management. The purpose of this study is to develop a tool that measures NP-physician co-management.
methodsItems were generated based on three theoretical dimensions of co-management. Face and content validity were established with six experts. Pilot testing was conducted with a convenience sample of 40 NPs and physicians. We computed mean, standard deviation, skewness, interitem and corrected item-total correlations, and Cronbach's alpha.
resultsPsychometric analysis yielded high subscale reliability: effective communication (α = .811); mutual respect and trust (α = .746); and shared philosophy of care (α = .779).
conclusionsPCMI demonstrates strong internal reliability consistency. Future research to examine construct validity is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.