ArticleInvestigacion y educacion en enfermeria2025
Prenatal care with blind pregnant women: validation of an instrument for nurses on knowledge, attitude and practice.
Article in Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria, 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
Objective: To verify evidence of validity of the instrument "Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Nurses in Prenatal Care for Visually Impaired Pregnant Women". Methods: Methodological study to assess content validity with the participation of 22 expert nurses (11 from the area of Sexual and Reproductive Health and 11 from the area of People with Disabilities). The instrument was adapted into a Google Forms questionnaire and assessed Objectivity, Clarity, and Relevance. The data were analyzed using the Content Validity Coefficient and Content Validity Ratio, in addition to calculating Cronbach's Alpha for internal consistency. Ten generalist nurses from Primary Care participated in the semantic validation, evaluating comprehension, relevance, and possible adjustments to the instrument, with calculation of the Semantic Concordance Index. Results: The instrument obtained an overall Content Validity Coefficient above 0.90 for objectivity, clarity, and relevance, with internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.89). The experts' suggestions improved the wording and structure. In semantic validation, the Semantic Concordance Index was 0.97, reinforcing clarity and applicability. Conclusion: The instrument showed evidence of content validity, being objective, clear, and relevant for assessing the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of nurses in the prenatal care of pregnant women with visual impairment.
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.