ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Cultural adaptation for Brazil of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Self-Efficacy Questionnaire.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto culturally adapt the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Brazil.
methodsa methodological study of clinical application, involving 126 healthcare professionals, developed between 2022 and 2023. The instrument measures healthcare professionals' self-efficacy in reporting cases of child abuse and neglect. The translation process into Brazilian Portuguese and back-translation followed international standards, and face validity was implemented using an international method.
resultsthe Brazilian version is composed of two dimensions and 35 items, and was well assessed by participants, with the majority considering it good or very good (88.1%), with easy-to-understand questions (73.8%), without any difficulty with the answer options (74.6%) and very important for the situation (85.7%).
conclusionsthe translated version preserved the conceptual equivalence of items, presenting face validity, and can be considered culturally adapted to the context studied.
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.