ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
How Much Dialogic Coordination Practices Matter to Healthcare Professionals-A Delphi Approach towards a Tool for Identification and Measurement.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of coordination practices in health policy is a central aspect. The need for further research has been recently highlighted because of COVID-19. In this sense, dialogic practices (DP) have been identified but not validated yet. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a DP questionnaire for healthcare teams. Items were identified based on a literature review, and the content validation was carried out by means of a Delphi study. A total of 10 experts assessed the clarity and appropriateness of the items and their corresponding measurement scales. After two rounds, a high level of consensus was reached, with agreement of 90% or higher on all items, and a high degree of stability and concordance in the results. This study resulted in a questionnaire consisting of four items, one for each identified DP initially proposed to the experts, as no other practices were revealed. From a practical perspective, the validation of these items constitutes a methodological innovation that responds to the call in the literature to open new avenues for comparative studies, and the possibility of generalising the findings and bringing together different approaches to the problem of coordination, which is key in health policy where unforeseen situations emerge.
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.