ArticlePublic health nursing (Boston, Mass.)
Developing a Scale to Measure Public Health Nurses' Advocacy Practices in Group and Community Settings in Japan.
Article in Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defining advocacy in public health: a scoping review to inform policy, training, and equity-oriented action.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop a scale to assess public health nurses' (PHNs') advocacy practices in groups and communities in Japan and determine its reliability and validity. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: This study is a cross-sectional investigation. The sample comprised PHNs across various municipalities in Japan. MEASUREMENTS: Anonymous self-administered questionnaires were conducted, including the attributes of PHNs, a preliminary scale, and external criteria. Reliability was assessed by calculating the alpha coefficient. To ascertain construct validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted.
resultsA total of 432 questionnaires were analyzed. The scale comprised 27 items divided into five factors: "Raising awareness of the challenging situation faced by disadvantaged individuals," "Empowering disadvantaged individuals to improve their situation autonomously," "Establishing a foundation in local governments and community groups of disadvantaged individuals for advocacy initiatives," "Working toward policy changes," and "Collaborating with stakeholders and organizations to enhance the effectiveness of activities." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.945. Model fit indices included a comparative fit index of 0.907, a goodness-of-fit index of 0.840, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index of 0.806, and a root mean square approximation of 0.067.
conclusionsThe developed scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity.
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.