Adaptation and validation of the safe birth checklist for a public maternal and child reference hospital

This study assesses the feasibility of a brief intervention among women with hazardous alcohol use at a primary health care service in Brazil. A two-arm randomized pilot study was carried out from July 2017 to January 2018 with 44 women aged 18 years or older with hazardous alcohol use. The intervention group completed a brief intervention in a single session lasting 20 to 30 minutes. The control group received five minutes of brief advice. Alcohol use was assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumed in the previous month were assessed at baseline and the first and third months of follow-up in both groups. The AUDIT score was decreased in both groups at baseline (intervention group 12.89, control group 10.64), the 1st month (intervention group 12.78 p = .9; control group 7.9 p = .01) and the 3rd month (intervention group 10.11 p = .13; control group 7.09 p < .01). The intervention group continued using alcohol after the brief intervention, although the quantity of alcohol consumed was reduced compared with that at baseline (p < .01). Finally, the brief intervention delivered in a primary health care service in Brazil showed the potential to reduce women’s pattern of alcohol consumption.

The aim is to map the barriers to the organization of Food and Nutrition Surveillance faced by health professionals in Primary Health Care services in Brazil. A scoping review using the JBI methodology. The search was conducted in August 2021 in the following databases: BVS, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, CAB Abstract, and Embase, with a time filter (2008 to 2021). Primary studies, opinion pieces, case studies, and reports were included. Data extraction was performed using the JBI's standard tool. Basic qualitative content analysis categorized the data according to the phases of the Food and Nutrition Surveillance Care Management and Production Cycle. A total of 23 studies were selected. The main barriers identified were related to data collection and information production. Analysis, decision-making, and action fell short of expectations, and there was no inherent approach to evaluation. Additional barriers identified were related to human resources, material/physical resources, and lack of financial resources. The data collection and recording phases are prioritized in Primary Health Care services in Brazil due to their ties to the conditionalities of intersectoral programs.

Frequency of A1C tests undertaken by patients assisted by pharmaceutical care services in Brazil

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and &lt;0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI &lt; 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI &gt; 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: &lt; 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

Objective: to validate the content and appearance of an educational manual to promote children’s mental health. Methods: this is a methodological study, in which 16 specialists (health and education professionals) and six of the target audience (nurses) participated. The Content Validity Index and the Agreement Index were calculated according to the response to the instrument, which assessed the objectives, appearance, structure, organization, relevance and didactics of the manual. Results: the Content Validity Index was 0.984 for the target audience, and the Agreement Index was 100.0%. The main changes were in the title, objectives and theoretical framework, excluding workshops and spelling and grammatical revision. Conclusion: the manual presented satisfactory Content Validity and Agreement indexes. It can assist nurses and other health professionals in promoting children’s mental health, promoting the development of emotional intelligence.

ABSTRACTObjective: To develop and validate both the content and reliability of the Neonatal Nutritional Risk Screening Tool (FARNNeo).Methods: Methodological study, convergent care. The instrument was built prior to the literature review and was analyzed by eight judges, during three cycles of the Delphi technique. The judges assessed their relevance and clarity with responses on the Likert scale with three levels, in addition to suggestions. The validation of the instrument was calculated using the agreement rate and content validity index (CVI). After content validation, the instrument was applied by four assisting nutritionists to verify reliability, using Cronbach`s alpha coefficient and the agreement between the evaluators by the Kappa coefficient.Results: All items of the instrument`s content reached the minimum agreement rate (90%) and/or CVI (0.9), except for item three, which in the first cycle obtained CVI 0.77 and 40% of agreement and, in the second cycle, CVI 0.75 and 38% agreement. At the end of the third cycle, all items had CVI values above 0.9. In the instrument application, alpha of 0.96 and Kappa of 0.74 were obtained, which reflect adequate values of internal consistency and agreement between the evaluators.Conclusions: FARNNeo proved to be reliable, clear, relevant, and reproducible for tracking early nutritional risk, systematizing the care of Brazilian newborns admitted to an intensive care unit.

To map treatment trajectories in a sample of male and female crack users through their narratives about the course of treatment seeking and their attempts to access health care services in Brazil. Qualitative study of a purposive sample (five female and nine male hospitalized crack users) using semi-structured interviews. The interviews were transcribed and data explored using content analysis. Respondents reported difficulties getting access to hospitalization, relapse after discharge, and abandonment of treatment. There seems to be a peculiar model of behavior for women and men while dealing with craving for crack: while women got involved with prostitution and consequently became infected with HIV, every men of the sample reported criminal involvement. The relationship between relapse and a social environment conducive to consumption, associated with belief or disbelief in spiritual support, prostitution, and the legal complications arising from the use of crack, are relevant issues and should be taken into consideration in the development of preventive actions aimed at this specific population.

Introdução: As redes sociais são um território que tem a presença de forma contínua da população mais jovem e seu uso exagerado pode ter relação direta com o aumento de problemas à saúde. Objetivo: Adaptar culturalmente o instrumento Facebook Intensity Scale (FIS) do inglês dos Estados Unidos para o português do Brasil. Método: Estudo metodológico, com participação do comitê de especialistas docentes atuantes no ensino e extensão inseridos em pesquisas envolvendo jovens ou mídias sociais. A coleta de dados ocorreu nos meses de janeiro à fevereiro de 2019. A análise de conteúdo foi desenvolvida em ambiente virtual, com utilização o Índice de Validade de Conteúdo (IVC) para avaliação da pertinência prática, relevância e dimensão teórica. Resultado: Dos oito itens da escala, sete apresentaram sugestões dos especialistas para alteração da versão adaptada. Na análise de conteúdo, o título da escala e todos os itens avaliados pelos especialistas quanto à pertinência prática e relevância teórica apresentaram valor máximo do IVC médio e global. Considerações Finais: As análises dos especialistas demonstraram que os itens são pertinentes à cultura brasileira com evidências científicas da adaptação cultural.

Background and Aims A global increase in the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and, consequently, in the number of individuals submitted to renal replacement therapy (RRT) has been observed. In Brazil, there was an increase from 46,557 to 144,779 (&amp;gt;310%) in the number of people on dialysis between the years 2001 and 2020, respectively. Although peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a safe, low-cost and less aggressive dialysis method when compared to hemodialysis (HD) and can be performed at the home, HD remains the most common RRT type in Brazil (92.2%). This study aimed to validate a PD section incorporated into an existing m-Health application (app) called 'Renal Health®'. Method This is a methodological study, with a quantitative and applied approach. For internal validation of the app usability, ten specialists/researchers in the study topic from the Nursing Nephrology participated in the study, hereafter referred to as ‘judges’, who carried out the validation process of the content to be inserted into the Renal Health® app. The validation instrument was sent to them electronically, organized according to a Likert scale following a four-degree gradation. Based on the specialists’ answers, the means of agreement were calculated, which ranged from –1 for a negative evaluation; 0 (zero) for a neither positive nor negative evaluation; and, +1 when the evaluation was positive. Data evaluation was done using descriptive statistics and the calculation of the content validity index (CVI). Each item of the validation instrument was analyzed in relation to these obtained averages, which, if they were less than 80%, would indicate the need for modifications. An evaluation instrument was created with 22 items arranged in three domains: objectives (4), structure and presentation (15), and relevance (3), aiming to reflect the app functionality, usability and appearance. Results Regarding the objectives related to the PD section, none of items received an “irrelevant” assessment and its CVI ranged from 0.90 to 1.0, with an overall CVI of 0.95. The sub-items with the highest scores were related to the text being compatible with the target audience and the PD section of the app having adequate information/content to guide the patients. Among the 15 sub-items related to the structure and presentation of the PD section, six showed 90% agreement among the judges and were distributed as follows: they indicated that the information directed to the object of interest was sufficient and adequate; stated that the colors applied to the text were relevant and facilitated its use; that the subtitles applied were adequate and helped the user to understand the image; confirmed that the amount of illustration was adequate for the content of the material; that the illustrations were clear and easy to understand and that they were relevant to the content of the material and elucidated the content. The other sub-items had a maximum CVI (1.0) and the overall CVI for this domain was 0.95. Finally, regarding the relevance of the PD section, all sub-items showed 100% agreement among the participants, so that the overall CVI was 1.0. Regarding the qualitative analysis of the instrument, there was no disagreement between the judges and/or suggestions for changes in the PD section. Conclusion The present study allowed the validation of the PD section in the Renal Health® app, which showed good reliability and could promote the use of m-Health technology to support users undergoing this type of dialysis.

Objective: to verify the content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol. Methods: a methodological study in which five speech therapists who assessed the clarity and the relevance of the protocol were selected. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to investigate the level of agreement among judges regarding overall aspects, items and domains of the protocol. Results: most judges considered the overall aspects of the protocol as comprehensive. As for clarity, 17 items showed an excellent content validity (CVI ≥ 0.78), three showed a good content validity (0.60 ≤ CVI ≤ 0.77) and two items were judged as poor (CVI ≤ 0.59). As for relevance, 19 items obtained an excellent content validity (CVI ≥ 0.78) and three had a good content validity (0.60 ≤ CVI ≤ 0.77). The judges suggested adding items related to vocal signal normality in all domains. After the analysis, 18 items required no reformulation, five items were added, three were reformulated and one was excluded. Conclusion: the proposed protocol was regarded as a comprehensive one. The items presented a good to excellent content validity as for clarity and relevance. After this validation step, the protocol ended up presenting 25 items distributed into five domains.

Objetivo: Validar um instrumento de avaliação de competências, habilidades e atitudes de estudantes de enfermagem durante a prática de simulação realí­stica em atendimento pré-hospitalar. Metodologia: Estudo metodológico realizado através do Método Delphi em uma Faculdade Particular do Recife no perí­odo de março a junho de 2019. Onze docentes participaram da validação de conteúdo utilizando a Escala de Likert, através da aplicação de um formulário auto-responsivo com 21 itens. A análise dos dados foi realizada através do índice de Validação de Conteúdo e do Alpha de Cronbach. Resultados: A validação de conteúdo apresentou escores de 0,8 indicando alta validade do instrumento acerca das questões de simulação realí­stica em atendimento pré-hospitalar. A confiabilidade do instrumento obteve valor de 0,79 avaliado como substancial, considerando a tabela de classificação de confiabilidade do alpha de Cronbach. Conclusão: Foi validado o produto técnico denominado "Formulário de avaliação de conhecimentos, habilidades e atitudes em atendimento pré-hospitalar na Simulação Realí­stica", com 21 itens avaliados com índices de Validade de Conteúdo e Cronbach satisfatórios.

Objective: Create and validate a podcast for dental surgeons as a guide after a dental avulsion. The validation was done through Google forms. Nine expert judges participated, following four aspects: characterization of the judges, content, functionality and appearance. The quantitative analysis was performed with Excel software to calculate the content validity index. Method: Methodological study with a quantitative and validation approach, carried out in three stages: integrative review of the literature; technology construction; validation of a post-avulsion podcast presented to nine expert judges. A Likert scale was used for data collection. For the analysis, a content validity index ≥ 0.75 was adopted. Results: The Content Validity Index presented values ​​of 0.84% ​​in its structure and presentation, 099% of high relevance for expert judges. Conclusion: The “Al Dente” podcast contains important information on dental reimplantation after an avulsion, resulting in preventive measures that directly influence health services.

To construct and validate a specialized nursing terminology for the care of newborns with peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC), based on the Betty Neuman Systems Model. Methodological study, carried out in a public maternity hospital, operationalized by the steps: extraction of terms from medical records of neonates using PICC; normalization; cross-mapping with the 2019/2020 version of ICNP®; organization in the Seven Axes; and content validation with nurses using content validity index and kappa coefficient. 1,718 terms were extracted, and 372 relevant terms were normalized, with 265 constants and 107 non-constants. A total of 335 terms were validated, 246 of which were constant and 89 were not constant, which reached an agreement index and kappa ≥ 0.80. Relevant terms were identified, which aid newborns using central venous catheters; thus, a terminological subset will be contributed to information in nursing practice.

To evaluate the effectiveness of a home exercise program called Home Exercise Booklet for People Living with Human T Lymphotropic Virus 1 (HTLV-1). This is a methodological study of content validation with expert judges. A questionnaire with a Likert scale was applied, containing 16 items referring to the content domain. Descriptive statistics were used to obtain the content validity index. In total, 46 judges participated, 24 physiotherapists (PG) and 22 professionals from other health areas specializing in methodological studies and HTLV-1 (EG). In the validation process, each evaluator judged the technology and scored their considerations. In the end, we obtained the following results for the Content Validity Index (CVI): PG CVI: 94.3%, GE CVI: 93.4%. Although the index was sufficient to consider the technology validated, modifications were made to the second and final version of the booklet, considering the judges' observations and suggestions, which we consider relevant. The technology proved to be valid for use with the target audience. The development and validation of this product provides support to help prevent functional decline in people living with HTLV-1; standardize guidelines for physiotherapy professionals who monitor these issues; start a home exercise program aimed at other comorbidities; open the possibility of creating and validating home exercise programs with other comorbidities.

Objectives: to describe the process of developing and validating the content of an educational-assistance technology for self-care for pregnant trans men during prenatal care. Methods: this is a methodological study with a quantitative approach that encompassed two main stages, namely: i) development of the “Pregnancy Handbook” technology; and, ii) validation of content and appearance by a committee of expert judges. In the validation stage, the Delphi technique was applied to a group of seven judges, who responded to a questionnaire using the Likert scale. To evaluate the suitability of the instrument, the Content Validity Index (CVI) and the Content Validity Coefficient (CVC) were used. Results: the educational-assistance technology evaluated achieved a satisfactory CVC (0.90) and a CVI with excellent agreement (0.94), and showed excellent agreement between the expert judges regarding its content and appearance. Conclusion: the validated educational-assistance technology brings potential in prenatal care for trans pregnant women in the context of comprehensive health care.