ArticleCureus2024
Greek School Nurses' Confidence With Diabetes Devices.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim School nurses often use diabetes mellitus devices as part of the care provided to students with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Diabetes Devices Confidence Scale (DDCS). Methods In this cross-sectional, descriptive study, 143 school nurses completed the DDCS. This is a self-administered questionnaire exploring the nurses' confidence in the use of diabetes devices. The scale was translated and culturally adapted according to the WHO guidelines. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Cronbach's Alpha Index were used to explore the reliability and internal consistency, respectively. The construct validity was tested via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA, CFA). Data were analyzed via Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results Significant correlations were observed between the two administrations (p<0.001) indicating the good reliability of the scale (ICC = 0525, p<0.001) while Cronbach's Alpha was 0.966 suggesting excellent internal consistency. The EFA resulted in a unidimensional solution explaining 53.7% of the total variance. The CFA showed that the model presents good fit to the data. Conclusions The DDCS is a reliable and valid tool to test the nurses' confidence in diabetes devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.