ArticlePloS one2024
Preparation and validation of the content of an instrument to assess the quality of services of reception with risk classification in obstetrics.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe expectations and needs of users and those assisting determine the quality of services. It becomes a priority to understand how all elements involved in the care process perceive the quality of the services offered, aiming to intervene promptly and organize them to satisfy the needs of both and improve the assistance provided.
objectiveTo develop and carry out content validation of an instrument for evaluating the quality of the Reception service with Risk Classification in obstetrics with evaluation dimensions for users, health professionals, and managers. METHODOLOGY: This is a methodological study for constructing and validating content. Consider the Pasquali Model, following the theoretical pole's component steps and the empirical's beginning. An instrument was created and divided into 3 modules: with a dimension for the user (module 1), health workers (module 2), and manager (module 3), created based on the theoretical framework according to Donabedian and the objectives proposed by the World Health Organization and Brazilian Ministry of Health. Validated for content by a committee of judges (experts) specializing in the area of the instrument. The analysis was carried out based on the committee's agreement rate, Content Validity Index (CVI), and Kappa index for the evaluation and achievement of the ideal parameters of agreement and content validity of the tool among the judges.
resultsThe results suggest that the tool has good content validity. CVI, Kappa, and CI were evaluated above 0.8. Item values considered lower than 0.8 were excluded.
conclusionThe results suggest that the tool has good content validity, and the pilot test stage can be continued to complete the validation process.
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.