ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2024
Instruments for evaluating the quality of services in chronic diseases: scoping review.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto map the scientific literature on the validity of instruments for evaluating the quality of services provided in primary health care for chronic diseases related to systemic arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, leprosy and tuberculosis.
methodscoping review, following the Joanna Briggs Institute method and described in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. 13 databases and gray literature were included. The selection of studies was carried out after removing duplicates and individual and paired evaluation. The data was extracted based on an elaborate script and presented in tables and charts.
resultsthe analysis of 28 selected studies showed that the majority were from Brazil, followed by China and Malaysia. Almost half of the validated instruments were generic, and the specific ones covered the evaluation of diabetes mellitus and leprosy. The types of validation carried out were content and construct.
conclusionthere is a need to construct specific instruments due to the scarcity of studies on the process of validating instruments for evaluating the quality of services provided by primary health care for chronic diseases. HIGHLIGHTS: (1) Validated instruments for evaluating services in chronic diseases.(2) Possibility of carrying out new studies on adaptations of PCAT and PACIC.(3) No evaluation was identified for minors under 18 years of age with chronic diseases.(4) Use of a generic instrument to evaluate specific chronic diseases.
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.