Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39132275›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT

Bullying among nursing professionals in Brazil: validity and reliability of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised.

Roberta Nazario Aoki, Dirceu da Silva, Edinêis de Brito Guirardello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Roberta Nazario AokiFaculdade de Enfermagem, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7319-6177
Dirceu da SilvaFaculdade de Educação, UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3267-511X
Edinêis de Brito GuirardelloFaculdade de Enfermagem, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0457-2850

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Bullying in the nursing work environment has negative consequences for both professionals and institutions. The early identification of this behavior can contribute to a positive organizational climate and better quality of life. Objectives: This study analyzed the validity and reliability of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised with nursing professionals. Methods: A total of 350 nursing professionals were included in this methodological study. Multivariate confirmatory factor analysis was based on 4 domains, as in the Portuguese version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. The instrument consists of 22 items that address negative acts committed in the work environment without directly mentioning bullying. Respondents indicate, on a Likert-type scale, how often they experience these acts in their work routine. Results: The adjusted model of the Brazilian version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised resulted in an instrument with 20 items and 4 distinct domains that presented satisfactory validity and reliability for identifying bullying behavior among nursing professionals. Conclusions: The Brazilian version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised is a valid instrument for identifying acts of bullying among nursing professionals and can be used in efforts to prevent such behavior in health services.

Indexed as

bullyingfactor analysisnursingpsychometricsstatisticalvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID39132275
PMCPMC11316537

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.