ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2026
Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool - Brazilian version: validity and reliability assessment.
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 assess the validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool.
methodsa methodological study conducted with 145 healthcare professionals from a hospital in the countryside of São Paulo. For data collection, a sample characterization form, the Brazilian version of the Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool, and sections B, C, and F of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture - Brazilian version were used. Confirmatory factor analysis and hypothesis testing (Spearman's correlation coefficient) were used to assess validity. To assess reliability, composite reliability was calculated.
resultsthe six-factor structure with three items was confirmed. The correlation coefficient reached p<0.0001 for all hypotheses tested. Composite reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.85.
conclusionsthe Brazilian version of the tool showed evidence of validity and reliability, and is suitable for practical use.
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.