ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Development and Validation of the Missed Nursing Care Tool for Pre-Operative Patients with Lung Cancer in China.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the missed intensive nursing care scale.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Translation and psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Missed Care Survey.International journal of nursing sciences · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current research suggests that missed nursing care is widespread in preoperative lung cancer patients in China, and preoperative airway management nursing care for lung cancer patients is not standardized. Missed nursing care for preoperative lung cancer patients, on the other hand, is rarely investigated, particularly from the patient's perspective. This study aimed to develop and validate the MISSCARE Survey for pre-operative patients with lung cancer in China. Methods: This study generated the preliminary draft of the MISSCARE Survey - Lung Cancer Patient (MS-LCP) and tested its reliability and stability through three rounds of lung cancer resection (494, 50, and 309 cases, respectively). 20 patients and 6 experts determined the face and content validity. EFA and CFA assessed construct and convergent validity. Internal consistency, including Cronbach's alpha, Spearman-Brown reliability, and re-test reliability, was also examined. Results: The scale contained 15 items, including specific care, communicative care, timely care, and basic care. KMO was 0.932 (> 0.6), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity showed P = 0.000 (<0.05). The attribution factor's item loads ranged from 0.765 to 0.853, accounting for 82.20% of the variation. The scale's Cronbach's alpha, Spearman-Brown, and retest reliability were 0.945, 0.879, and 0.824. CFA showed goodness of fit (RMSEA = 0.021, Conclusion: The MS-LCP was reliable and valid in this study, making it appropriate for the Chinese lung cancer patient population. This tool is more objective in its presentation of missed nursing care, assisting nursing staff in optimizing nursing procedures before surgery, increasing the implementation of higher-quality tumor care, and promoting the recovery of lung cancer surgery patients.
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.