ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2024
Validation of the Brazilian Version of the Modified Scale for Delineating Advanced Practice Nursing Roles.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced practice nursing role development in primary health care in Brazil and Germany: comparative perspective.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Health promotion and disease prevention: Advanced Practice Nursing competencies in women's health consultations.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Practice Domains of Advanced Practice Nurses Among Participants in the Latin American Nursing Leadership School: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto validate the Brazilian version of the Modified Scale for Delineating Advanced Practice Nursing Roles.
methodsthis was a methodological study for the clinical validation of an instrument, conducted with 207 nurses working in primary care. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha test, and z-test for proportion comparison were used.
resultsthe internal reliability of the scale was 0.944, with alpha greater than 0.80 in most domains, except for Education (0.786). In the exploratory factor analysis, considering the criterion of eigenvalue greater than one, eight factors were identified, explaining 79.38% of the variance. In the comparison of proportions, the adequate responses (≥ 2) in the domain of Comprehensive Direct Care, in both analyzed groups, were statistically equal. This domain had the highest score of adequate responses, followed by Education and Systems Support. Insufficient scoring was observed in the domains of Publication and Professional Leadership.
conclusionsthe instrument demonstrated stability and reliability to be used in the evaluation of advanced nursing practice.
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.