A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Multi-Professional Family Support Programme: A Collective Development at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. | LitMetric

This study was undertaken to structure and validate a Multi-Professional Family Support Programme that was collectively developed at a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). This is participative research of the action-research category with a qualitative-quantitative approach conducted at a University Hospital in the southeast of Brazil with the participation of their multi-professional staff. The study was done in four interdependent stages, adapted from the method proposed by Thiollent (2011): organisation, structuring, validation, and diffusion. Qualitative data were analysed following Bardin's (2016) Content Analysis Technique and presented in categories and sub-categories. The evaluation instruments followed the evaluation criteria proposed by Pasquali (2010). In the analysis of quantitative data, coefficient was used to verify reliability, coefficient for measuring agreement, and the for relevance and representativeness. The programme was built collectively and is based on the . reached values above 0.90, which is excellent reliability. There was varying agreement between substantial/perfect and significant (k = 0.68-1.00; < 0.001), and all the evaluation criteria were considered relevant and representative (CVI > 90.0%). The programme and its guiding technologies were structured and validated with high levels of reliability, agreement, relevance, and representativeness.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121568DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

multi-professional family
8
family support
8
support programme
8
neonatal intensive
8
intensive care
8
care unit
8
evaluation criteria
8
agreement relevance
8
relevance representativeness
8
programme
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!