ArticleRevista de saude publica2024
Brazilian Scale for Evaluation of Mental Health Care Needs: Additional Evidence.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate validity evidence of the Brazilian Scale for Evaluation of Mental Health Care Needs (CuidaSM).
methodsThis is a psychometric study, which seeks additional evidence of internal structure. Data collection was carried out in 11 Primary Health Care (PHC) services , which implement the Health Care Planning (HCP) methodology, distributed across the five Brazilian regions. The preliminary version of CuidaSM, containing a block self-referred by the user and another block evaluated by PHC professionals, was applied to users aged 18 or over who attended the PHC services for consultation with a higher education professional. The techniques of confirmatory factor analysis and network analysis were used to investigate validity evidence. For the primary data of the confirmatory factor analysis, the factorial loads and the item's predictive power (R2) were used. Six model adjustment indices were adopted and reliability was measured by three indicators using Bayesian estimation.
resultsA total of 879 users participated in the study. By confirmatory factor analysis, factorial loads ranged from 0.43 to 0.99 and R2 from 0.19 to 0.98. Both the primary indicators and the model adequacy indices were established at satisfactory and consistent levels. The network analysis showed that the items were appropriately associated with their peers, respecting the established dimensions, which again indicates the sustainability and stability of the proposed model.
conclusionsThe study findings confirm a consistent and reliable model of the instrument, through a combination of techniques. Considering the importance of using solid instruments in clinical practice, CuidaSM is a promising tool for population-based management and network care organization, aligned with HCP proposals.
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.