ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2026
Validity evidence of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems instrument: Brazilian version.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto adapt and validate the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems instrument for Brazilian culture.
methodsa methodological study involving translation, cross-cultural adaptation, content validity, response process, and evaluation of the internal structure of the instrument across six dimensions. Data were collected remotely by sending a link via WhatsApp to access the adapted instrument.
resultsduring the cross-cultural adaptation, some terms required adjustment; in the content validity phase, certain items were excluded and grammatical modifications were made. No changes were indicated in the response process. In the exploratory factor analysis, 13 items (59%) were excluded, and evidence suggested structural issues in the instrument, indicating it was composed of a single dimension. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the instrument is unidimensional and lacks precision.
conclusionsthe use of this adapted version for Brazilian culture is not recommended.
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.