ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Development and validation of a family-centered care instrument for NICU practice in low resource setting.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily-centered care (FCC) has become the gold standard of intensive care practice, especially in the neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), due to its positive impact on family and neonatal health outcomes. However, there are few validated instruments specifically designed to assess FCC practices in low-resource NICU settings. This study adopted the Family Systems Theory (FST) as a theoretical framework to develop and validate an instrument for assessing the implementation of FCC in low-resource NICUs.
methodsThis study was an instrument development and validation in a three-phased mixed-method triangulation design. Phase I consisted of a scoping review, 24 interviews, and 12 focus group discussions to generate a 40-item draft. Phase II involved piloting (n = 30) the drafted instrument for two quantitative surveys (n = 446) among family (n = 346) and clinicians (n = 100) for item reduction with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Phase III entailed instrument validation by estimating validity and reliability through a two-round modified Delphi study with experts (n = 25). The study conforms to the STROBE checklist of instrument development and validation.
resultsFactor analysis produced a validated 20-item instrument, the Family Acceptance (4 items), Education (6 items), Environmental Design (6 items), and Sufficient Resources (4 items) (FEES) instrument. The instrument has acceptable validity and reliability; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was 0.943, CFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.995, ω = 0.955, Cronbach's alpha = 0.949, and average Intra-Class Correlation of 0.951. The expert validation of the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.88 to 0.96, and the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) is 0.924.
conclusionsAn instrument has been developed and validated, which demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties, potentially contributing to knowledge and practice in paediatric nursing. The FEES instrument provides a reliable tool to assess FCC practices in NICUs in neonatal care, which could result in the adjustment of nursing interventions to improve healthcare outcomes for critically ill infants and their families. The FEES instrument has further illuminated the importance of FCC in healthcare, especially NICU practice. It could guide the design of future research methodology, instrument development, and advanced statistical analysis to enhance practice and education in nursing science.
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.