ArticleJournal of nursing education and practice2021
Design and development of the home healthcare worker observation tool.
Article in Journal of nursing education and practice, 2021. 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.
- Exploring a career pathway for home support workers in Ireland: a systematic scoping review of the international evidence.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Background: The rapidly growing number of home healthcare workers (HHCW) are exposed to unique occupational hazards within each patient home. This article describes the development of an observation tool to document occupational hazards HHCWs encounter. Methods: Tool development followed three steps: determining content domain, content validity, and inter-rater agreement. Results: Expert feedback guided the revision of content domain to 636 items. Scale level content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.90. Inter-rater agreement tests resulted in percent agreement and accuracy mean of 89.5% and frequency variables resulted in standard deviations from 0 to 8.62. Conclusions: The observation tool encompasses the diverse range of occupational hazards HHCWs encounter; inter-rater percent agreement and overall accuracy scores were acceptable. Future pilot testing of this tool among broader raters and populations is recommended to characterize its usability, internal consistency, and reliability to assess HHCW occupational hazards.
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.