ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Italian Validation of the Chiba Interprofessional Competency Scale (CICS29).
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Re-evaluation of the interprofessional collaboration scale validation between nurses towards other health care professionals occupied in Italian emergency medical services.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Are we ready to collaborate? The interprofessional collaborative competencies of healthcare professionals in the Global South context.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Interprofessional collaboration between different health care professions in Emilia Romagna.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and aim of the workThe Chiba Inter-professional Competency Scale (CICS29) validated in several languages, it is a self-report instrument that investigates the degree of interprofessional collaboration in six areas: attitudes and beliefs of the professional; ability to manage a work group; actions to achieve goals; providing assistance that respects the patient; attitudes and behaviours that improve the cohesion of the working group; fulfilling or performing the own professional role. In addition to being recent, the scale investigates collaboration among all health professionals, and is not limited to specific professionals. The aim of the study was to validate the Italian version of CICS29.
methodA questionnaire-based study was conducted with an Italian sample consisting of 530 health professionals (419 women¸ mean age = 40 years, SD = 10.7; range 23- 58 years). The internal validity was measured using factor analysis. To verify the convergent validity, the Italian Version of Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS) was correlated with the CICS29; Results: The reliability and the internal validity of the CICS29 revealed 6 factors corresponding to the original subscales. The analysis presents an excellent sample adequacy measure (KMO = .933) with the scores ranging from 0.62 to 0.78 for the interclass correlation coefficients of the 6 domains. A significant level of correlation was found between the subscales of the CICS29 and the ICCAS.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the Italian version of CICS29 has a satisfactory level of reliability and validity and it is recommended for measuring interprofessional collaboration of the health professionals. (www.actabiomedica.it).
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.