ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
Multi-Professional Family Support Programme: A Collective Development at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study was undertaken to structure and validate a Multi-Professional Family Support Programme that was collectively developed at a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). This is participative research of the action-research category with a qualitative-quantitative approach conducted at a University Hospital in the southeast of Brazil with the participation of their multi-professional staff. The study was done in four interdependent stages, adapted from the method proposed by Thiollent (2011): organisation, structuring, validation, and diffusion. Qualitative data were analysed following Bardin's (2016) Content Analysis Technique and presented in categories and sub-categories. The evaluation instruments followed the evaluation criteria proposed by Pasquali (2010). In the analysis of quantitative data,
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.