Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41937738›Full record

ArticleNursing in critical care2026

Family Presence During Invasive Procedures or Resuscitation, Nurse Perception and Preparedness Questionnaire (FPDIP/R-NPPQ): A Validity and Reliability Study.

Davide Bartoli, Francesca Trotta, Mariachiara Figura, Marco Di Muzio, Daniele Napolitano, Marco Fatata, Gianluca Pucciarelli, Francesco Petrosino

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing in critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Davide BartoliDepartment of Well-Being, Health and Environmental Sustainability (BeSSA Department), Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6494-1190
Francesca TrottaUnit of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0608-966X
Mariachiara FiguraDepartment of Health Promotion, Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8204-0564
Marco Di MuzioDepartment of Well-Being, Health and Environmental Sustainability (BeSSA Department), Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2641-4044
Daniele NapolitanoDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2481-5354
Marco FatataDepartment of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Gianluca PucciarelliDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6915-6802
Francesco PetrosinoDepartment of Health Management, Local Health Authority of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2607-8749

Funding

Center of Excellence for Nursing Scholarship (CECRI), Rome, Italy 3900
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFamily presence during invasive procedures and resuscitation (FPDIP/R; FPDR) is increasingly advocated, yet no validated instrument assesses nurses' perceptions and preparedness including organisational readiness for implementation.

aimTo develop and psychometrically validate the FPDIP/R-NPPQ. STUDY

designA multicentre cross-sectional survey was conducted in three Italian hospitals (April-July 2024). Registered nurses (N = 212) completed a study-specific instrument initially comprising 52 items; psychometric analyses were performed on 37 Likert-type items. We applied a two-step strategy: exploratory factor analysis (EFA; parallel analysis, principal axis factoring, oblimin rotation, marker-index screening) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using robust maximum likelihood for ordinal/non-normal data. Reliability was estimated via McDonald's ω. A grant from the Center of Excellence for Nursing Scholarship, Rome, March 2025, is funding this research.

resultsEFA supported a 19-item, three-factor solution explaining 57.47% of variance: (1) emotional value and relational benefits of family presence (5 items); (2) communication skills and structured management (6 items); and (3) operational support through a dedicated staff member (8 items). CFA confirmed good fit (RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI 0.04-0.06; CFit = 0.36; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; SRMR = 0.07), with standardised loadings ranging 0.24-0.92 and ω = 0.82-0.87 across factors. Model refinement improved fit without permitting cross-loadings, preserving construct distinctiveness while accounting for localised method effects.

conclusionsThe FPDIP/R-NPPQ is a valid and reliable 19-item, three-factor instrument measuring nurses' readiness for family presence during invasive procedures and resuscitation. By distinguishing attitudes towards family presence, communication/management preparedness and organisational readiness (including the facilitator role), the tool enables services to identify implementation barriers and to plan targeted training and governance strategies prior to adopting FPDR/FPDIP policies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The FPDIP/R-NPPQ supports clinical governance by providing actionable subscale profiles to guide implementation of FPDIP/R. It can be used to baseline readiness across units, identify specific training and protocol needs and inform organisational decisions such as the allocation of a trained family facilitator, thereby supporting safer and more standardised family presence practices during critical procedures.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFamilyNursing Staff, HospitalResuscitationVisitors to PatientsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesfamily presence during resuscitationnurseperceptionpreparednessreliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID41937738
PMCPMC13051457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.