ArticlePloS one2025
Brazilian scale for evaluation of mental health care needs (CuidaSM): evidence of validity in primary health care.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn primary healthcare (PHC) settings, initiatives to identify mental health care needs (MHCN) are needed to ensure integral and quality care. However, there are few valid tools supporting health professionals in decision-making. This study aimed to obtain evidence of validity of the Brazilian Scale for Evaluation of Mental Health Care Needs (CuidaSM) in PHC.
methodsA group of health professional experts developed 130 dichotomous items, which were assessed by a heterogeneous group of panelists from different regions of Brazil (n = 73). Content validity ratio (CVR) was calculated, resulting in a second version of the scale with 43 items, which was administered to 879 healthcare users to provide evidence of internal-structure validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Dimensionality was assessed through robust parallel analysis and the model was then cross-validated to create the final CuidaSM version. The CuidaSM score was subjected to normalization.
resultsThe final version of CuidaSM comprised 31 items, which were divided into two blocks: a "self-referred" block with 17 items distributed into five dimensions (Social Relationships, Functioning, Autonomy, Impulsiveness and Aggressiveness, and Spirituality) and a "health professional evaluation" block with 14 items and three dimensions (Violence, Self-aggression and Suicidal Behavior, and Caregiving Plan). The final model's explained variance was 62.7%. Dimensionality values pointed to a multidimensional model (UNICO = 0.79; ECV = 0.69; and MIREAL = 0.22). All indicators were within adequate and satisfactory limits. CuidaSM score normalization stratified MHCN into four strata.
conclusionsThe CuidaSM scale is a concise instrument combining healthcare user self-assessment and health professional clinical assessment. CuidaSM show satisfactory evidence of validity and was found to be a consistent, reliable, and robust instrument capable of accurately measuring MHCN in the PHC setting in Brazil.
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.