ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Visibility of Community Nursing Within an Administrative Health Classification System: Evaluation of Content Coverage.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization is in the process of developing an international administrative classification for health called the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI). The purpose of ICHI is to provide a tool for supporting intervention reporting and analysis at a global level for policy development and beyond. Nurses represent the largest resource carrying out clinical interventions in any health system. With the shift in nursing care from hospital to community settings in many countries, it is important to ensure that community nursing interventions are present in any international health information system. Thus, an investigation into the extent to which community nursing interventions were covered in ICHI was needed.
objectiveThe objectives of this study were to examine the extent to which International Classification for Nursing Practice (ICNP) community nursing interventions were represented in the ICHI administrative classification system, to identify themes related to gaps in coverage, and to support continued advancements in understanding the complexities of knowledge representation in standardized clinical terminologies and classifications.
methodsThis descriptive study used a content mapping approach in 2 phases in 2018. A total of 187 nursing intervention codes were extracted from the ICNP Community Nursing Catalogue and mapped to ICHI. In phase 1, 2 coders completed independent mapping activities. In phase 2, the 2 coders compared each list and discussed concept matches until consensus on ICNP-ICHI match and on mapping relationship was reached.
resultsThe initial percentage agreement between the 2 coders was 47% (n=88), but reached 100% with consensus processes. After consensus was reached, 151 (81%) of the community nursing interventions resulted in an ICHI match. A total of 36 (19%) of community nursing interventions had no match to ICHI content. A total of 100 (53%) community nursing interventions resulted in a broader ICHI code, 9 (5%) resulted in a narrower ICHI code, and 42 (23%) were considered equivalent. ICNP concepts that were not represented in ICHI were thematically grouped into the categories family and caregivers, death and dying, and case management.
conclusionsOverall, the content mapping yielded similar results to other content mapping studies in nursing. However, it also found areas of missing concept coverage, difficulties with interterminology mapping, and further need to develop mapping methods.
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.