ReviewPublic health nursing (Boston, Mass.)
Development of the Essential Individual Care Needs Assessment Tool for Public Health Nurses.
Review in Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.). 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.
- A Benchmarking Dashboard System With Supervisory Public Health Nurses: An Implementation Study.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop essential individual care needs assessment (EICNA) items and evaluate the validity of that judgment.
designWe used a sequential two-phase design for this study.
methodsItem selection was conducted using φ coefficients between these items' values and the care need levels and discussions with supervisory PHNs. Phase 1 was a cross-sectional, nationwide survey of 275 mid-level public health nurses (PHNs) from 196 municipalities in Japan (December 2022 to January 2023), including 46 potential EICNA items. In Phase 2, PHNs piloted the EICNA items in clinical settings, entering data into a web-based system that used an algorithm to determine care need levels based on the weighted sum of 21 items (August 2023 to January 2024). Thereafter, the PHNs evaluated the appropriateness of the algorithm's judgments.
resultsTwenty-one essential items were identified. Among 1867 cases, care need levels were categorized as low (n = 1008, 54.0%), moderate (n = 652, 34.9%), and high (n = 207, 11.1%), with 94.9% of PHNs considered the algorithm's classifications appropriate.
conclusionTwenty-one EICNA items were identified to assess the care needs, and the level of care needs determined by the weighted sum of these items was deemed appropriate by PHNs.
trial registrationUMIN000051509 (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/; August 1, 2023).
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.