Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31380155›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Development of a short questionnaire based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index in primary health care.

Vicente Gea-Caballero, Raúl Juárez-Vela, Miguel-Ángel Díaz-Herrera, María-Isabel Mármol-López, Ruben Alfaro Blazquez, José Ramón Martínez-Riera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Study of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Nursing Work Environments in Primary Care in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Vicente Gea-CaballeroNursing School La Fe, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8607-3195
Raúl Juárez-VelaFacultad de Ciencia y Tecnología, Universidad de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain.
Miguel-Ángel Díaz-HerreraPrimary Care Nursing Team Sant Ildefons-Cornellà 2, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6014-2180
María-Isabel Mármol-LópezNursing School La Fe, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Ruben Alfaro BlazquezGREIACC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria IIS La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
José Ramón Martínez-RieraDepartamento de Enfermería Comunitaria, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública e Historia de la Ciencia, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional nursing environments determine the quality of care and patient outcomes. Assessing the quality of environments is essential to improve and obtain better health outcomes. Simplifying and shortening the way to evaluate environments reliably is also important to help nurses better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their environments. In that sense, identifying essential elements of nursing environments would allow the construction of short assessment tools to improve such environments.

objectiveTo construct a short tool to assess primary health care (PHC) nursing environments based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI) questionnaire.

methodsObservational, cross-sectional, analytical study (data collection February-April 2015). Tool: PES-NWI (31 items). Population: PHC nurses (three health districts in Valencia, Spain) with more than 3 months in the organization. The nurses were asked to select the 10 elements of the questionnaire (items) that they considered key to facilitate and improve professional care, establishing as a final selection criterion that they obtain a global election >40%. Variables: sociodemographic and 31 questionnaire items. Analysis: descriptive statistics, reliability, multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL), factor analysis, multiple linear regression. Finally, we have analyzed the concordance between both measurements (TOP10 score on the full scale score) using the Bland-Altman method.

resultsStudy sample = 269 (Response rate = 80.29%). A total of 10 elements were identified based on selection frequency of the questionnaire PES-NWI. A factorial analysis explained 62.1% of variance, internal structure of three dimensions: (1) Participation in leadership and management, (2) Nursing foundations for quality of care, (3) Adequacy of resources, with Accumulate Variance explained: Component (1): 24%; Component (2): 43.1%; Component (3): 62.1%. Reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) was 0.816 for short questionnaire, and >0.8 for all measurements. Stress = 0.184 and RSQ = 0.793. Bland-Altman method: the scaling tends to be 1.92 points higher (equivalent to a maximum deviation of 1.54%) than the full-scale PES-NWI score (max score on PES-NWI = 124 points).

conclusionsIt is possible to identify essential elements of environments to construct a short tool that simplifies the study of PHC environments. Conducting rapid studies of environments will provide managers with information about specific elements that require prioritization to enhance quality of care and safety.

Indexed as

Community health nursingEnvironmentPrimary health careQuality of health careQuestionnaire design

Identifiers

PMID31380155
PMCPMC6660900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.