ArticleJornal de pediatria
Adaptation of the Youth Connectedness to Provider scale to assess the relationship between health professionals and adolescent and young adult patients.
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of a Brazilian version of the Checklist for Assessment of Gender Disadvantage (CAGED) in adolescents.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to adapt an instrument that evaluates the relationship between young individuals and health professionals to the Brazilian population, which will be called the Escala de Avaliação de Vínculo entre Jovens e Profissionais de Saúde (Youth Connectedness to Provider scale).
methodThe questionnaire known as the Youth Connectedness to Provider scale consists of seven Likert-like questions. The translation, back-translation, evaluation by ten specialists, and pre-test with 43 adolescents and young adults aged between 10 and 24 years were performed to assess the clarity and reliability of meanings. The content validity index was calculated for each question. Subsequently, the clinical validation was performed with 83 patients aged 10-24 years old and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated.
resultsA content validity index >0.8 (considered satisfactory) was obtained for all items analyzed by experts and adolescents. At the clinical validation, it showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.76). The questions showed a good correlation, except for the question about judgment (Spearman's rho=0.03-0.19).
conclusionsThe scale adaptation showed an adequate agreement rate at the translation evaluation and a good reliability index in the questions. This instrument provides information on strengths and topics that require more attention from professionals to improve the relationship with their patients; it can be a valuable parameter in assessing the medical consultation quality.
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.