Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38261557›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Development and validation of nurse's assessment ability questionnaire in delirium subtypes: Based on Delphi expert consensus.

Wen Zhou, Qiulan Zheng, Miao Huang, Jiao Wang, Xiuni Gan

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wen ZhouDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qiulan ZhengDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Miao HuangDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jiao WangJoint Surgery Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiuni GanDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9854-7247

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium, a common occurrence in clinical work, can be divided into three subtypes according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5 th Edition (DSM-5). Each subtype has its special significance and focus. As the primary caregivers and observer of delirious patients, nurses should be able to quickly and accurately indentify each subtype. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify nurses' assessment ability of delirium subtypes. However, there is currently no suitable questionnaire available for investigating nurses' assessment ability of delirium subtypes.

objectiveTo develop a scientifically validated questionnaire for assessing nursing assessment ability of delirium subtypes based on Knowledge-Attitude-Practice(KAP) Model.

methodsThe questionnaire was conducted from October 2021 to February 2022 to assess the KAP status of nurses the regarding delirium subtype. A two-round Delphi Method was employed to revise the draft questionnaire, ensuring the importance and rationality of each item. Ten experts specializing in critically ill patients, clinical nursing, and nursing management were invited from seven provinces in China for the Delphi process. Additionally, we validated the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

resultsThe return rate in the first and second rounds were 83% and 100%, respectively. The individual authority coefficients for the two rounds of correspondence ranged from 0.787 to 0.987, while the overall authority coefficient of experts was 0.866. Kendall's coefficient of coordination for the importance scores were found to be 0.192 and 0.156, respectively, whereas those for rationality scores were calculated as 0.149 and 0.141, respectively. Notably, all mean values of importance and rationality scores in the two rounds were exceeded a threshold of 4.10 across both rounds of assessment with coefficient variations (CV) ranging from 0.00 to 0.19 for importance ratings and 0.00 to 0.16 for rationality ratings, both of which were <0.25. Experts proposed modifications to eleven items while introducing four new ones into consideration during this process; thus ensuring that reliability and validity standards were met by the final questionnaire design which consists of a total of thirty-seven items distributed across four dimensions: delirium subtype-related knowledge, assessment attitude, assessment practice, and knowledge source-thereby establishing its clinical relevance as a reliable scientific instrument.

conclusionThe development process is both scientific and theoretical, encompassing reliable expert correspondence results and a diverse range of question formats. As thus, effectively captures the current landscape of delirium subtypes assessment among clinical nurses from multiple perspectives, including knowledge level and source, attitude, assessment behavior, and assessment barriers. It offers comprehensive and detailed insights.

Indexed as

DeliriumGroup ProcessesChinaHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38261557
PMCPMC10805299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.