ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Content validity of digital health competence measures for nursing in South Africa.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
Introduction: The increasing use of digital technology to improve healthcare outcomes for patients and institutions requires that nurses have adequate levels of digital competence, measured by psychometrically sound measures. However, most measures are developed in high-income countries and have not been adapted to other settings. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the content validity of two measures, developed in Finland, that measure digital competence ( Methods: Participants were predominantly nurses from private and public facilities in South Africa who completed an online content validity rating scale ( Results: I-CVI values for relevance and clarity were mostly >.78, except for some items in the "human-centred remote counselling competence" subscale ( Discussion: Adaptations included adding relevant definitions, clarifying the target population or management level, adding a "not applicable" option to the rating scale and clarifying the meaning or context using appropriate alternative words. The final measure was approved by the participants and the original authors of the measures.
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.