ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2025
Validation and usability assessment of a mobile application on first aid for children for professionals in basic education.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the school environment, the need to perform first aid is common to meet the different demands presented by children. For this, education professionals need to be trained. The versatility of mobile applications in the learning process stands out among the qualification possibilities. The aim of the study was to validate the content, and appearance and evaluate the usability of a mobile application on first aid for basic education professionals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis methodological study was conducted virtually throughout Brazil, between September 2023 and April 2024. Content and appearance were validated by specialist experts (doctors [
resultsContent and appearance validation was performed by 34 experts; in content validation, of the 14 items evaluated, 11 had the Content Validity Index per item (I-CVI) ≥ 0.91. In appearance validation, all items were evaluated with I-CVI ≥ 0.94. The total CVI was 0.93. A total of 109 primary education professionals conducted a usability evaluation, and they considered that 100% of the nine items were evaluated as satisfactory.
conclusionThe app "
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.