ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development and validation of the neonatal safety assessment scale in disasters (NSASD).
Article in BMC nursing, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNewborns are highly vulnerable to multidimensional safety risks during disasters. However, no standardized, disaster-specific assessment tool currently exists to evaluate neonatal safety in emergency settings systematically. This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess neonatal safety in disaster settings.
methodsThe study included 302 neonatal nurses who provided care to newborns affected by the February 6, 2023, Türkiye earthquakes. Content validity was assessed with the Polit-Beck Content Validity Index (CVI). Reliability was evaluated using the Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) coefficient. Items with negative item-total correlations or correlations below 0.20 were considered for removal. The research utilized an Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Design; quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed sequentially.
resultsThe Polit-Beck CVI was 1.00, and the KR-20 coefficient was 0.81, demonstrating strong internal consistency reliability. Ten items were removed due to low item-total correlations, resulting in the final version of the scale. The "Neonatal Safety Assessment Scale in Disasters" demonstrated strong validity and reliability, making it suitable for evaluating neonatal safety in disaster contexts.
conclusionsThe developed instrument is a robust and reliable tool for assessing neonatal safety during disasters, supporting clinical decision-making and preparedness in neonatal care.
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.