ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2024
Educational booklet on labor and delivery: validity study.
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 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.
- Educational technologies on signs of gestational risk and/or labor for pregnant women: a scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto develop and validate an educational booklet on labor and delivery for pregnant women.
methodsthis methodological study involved constructing and validating a booklet based on Echer's framework. We used the Content Validity Index and Cronbach's alpha for content and face validation, selecting judges according to Fering's criteria. We then conducted a clinical validation with the target population.
resultsthe booklet, developed based on evidence from an integrative review and validated by judges and the target audience, achieved global Content Validity Index of 0.919 and 0.913, respectively. After clinical validation with 22 pregnant women, it included 28 topics and 48 pages, with illustrations by a graphic designer.
conclusionsexpert judges and the target audience considered this educational technology valid, deeming it a relevant tool for promoting the health of pregnant women.
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.