Observational studyJournal of nursing management2026
Adaptation and Content Validation of the Belgian Winnipeg Assessment of Neonatal Nursing Needs Tool (BE-WANNNT) for Neonatal Intensive Care Units.
Observational study in Journal of nursing management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adaptation and Content Validation of the Belgian Winnipeg Assessment of Neonatal Nursing Needs Tool (BE-WANNNT) for Neonatal Intensive Care Units.Journal of nursing management · 2026Observational
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
backgroundContinuous advancements in neonatal intensive care (NICU) have increased the complexity of care and the workload of nurses. Existing workload measurement instruments, such as the Winnipeg Assessment of Neonatal Nurses Needs Tool (WANNNT), are valuable but require adaptation to local healthcare settings.
objectiveThis study aimed to adapt and validate the WANNNT for the Belgian NICU context, resulting in the BE-WANNNT.
methodsA 2-year observational mixed-methods study was conducted. First, the original WANNNT and WANNNT-SC were translated and adapted to the Belgian context, incorporating corrected gestational age, updated respiratory modalities, and restructuring of indicators by physiological systems. Using the Policy Delphi method, an expert panel of NICU head nurses (n = 8) reviewed and refined 49 indicators across six consensus rounds. Subsequently, an online survey was distributed to NICU nurses and midwives (n = 76) to evaluate indicator clarity, relevance, and care intensity using a four-point Likert scale. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, while quantitative data were assessed with descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultsThe preliminary BE-WANNNT was modified to reflect current Belgian NICU practices. Consensus was reached on the majority of indicators, with 45 of 49 achieving ≥ 75% agreement for clarity and relevance. Four indicators (e.g., low-flow nasal cannula, neonatal abstinence syndrome < 8, cardiorespiratory monitoring, and saturation measurement) did not reach consensus but were retained after expert evaluation. Care intensity levels were confirmed for 38 indicators, while 11 required reconsideration, resulting in minor adjustments. The final BE-WANNNT consists of six care levels and a contextually adapted and content validated set of indicators, enabling structured assessment of nursing workload in Belgian NICUs.
conclusionThe BE-WANNNT is the first workload assessment tool specifically adapted for the Belgian NICU context. It provides a structured and contextually adapted framework to support workload assessment and evidence-informed staffing discussions in neonatal intensive care. Future research is needed to evaluate inter-rater reliability, additional psychometric properties, and the long-term impact on workforce planning, nurse well-being, and patient outcomes.
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.