ArticleRevista de saude publica2019
Construction and validation of an instrument for the assessment of care provided to people with suicidal behavior.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2019. 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.
- Adequacy of the Risk Stratification Instrument in Mental Health: Experience Report.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate an instrument for evaluating primary health care professionals' assistance to people with suicidal behavior.
methodsThis was a methodological study, which began with a literature review, followed by the elaboration of an instrument. In its first version, the instrument had 34 items, divided into four domains: "professional characterization," "professional perception " "professional knowledge/abilities," and "organization of the care network." Contents were validated using the Delphi method. Semantic analysis was performed by college-educated primary health care professionals in greater and lesser strata of ability. For internal consistency analysis, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated. The study was conducted between January and December 2017.
resultsAfter four Delphi rounds, the instrument was successfully validated. In its final form, it is comprised of 50 items, divided into five domains: "professional characterization," "professional sensibility," "professional experience," "professional knowledge/abilities," and "organization of the care network." Questions belonging to the last four domains have answers on a five-point Likert scale. In the semantic analysis, 93.6% of the evaluations were "good" and "very good." The instrument's general Cronbach alpha was 0.90.
conclusionsThe final version of the instrument was able to fulfill its objectives. It is useful as a support for epidemiological research and planning of health actions. The evaluation of professional approaches to suicidal behavior is crucial for the organization of suicide assistance services in primary health care, and for the integration of services provided by different care units.
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.