Volume 16, Issue 3 (11-2020)                   HSR 2020, 16(3): 212-218 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Vahedian-Azimi A, Alhani F, Rahimi-Bashar F. The Methodological Quality Assessment of Published Papers based on Family-Centered Empowerment Model: A Scientometric Study. HSR 2020; 16 (3) :212-218
URL: http://hsr.mui.ac.ir/article-1-1171-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Trauma Research Center AND Department of Nursing, School of Nursing, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, School of Medicine, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3- Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract:   (1628 Views)
Background: According to the widespread prevalence of different chronic diseases, nurses need to know the choices, necessities, and abilities of patients. The study purpose was to investigate the methodological quality of published papers based on Family-Centered Empowerment Model (FCEM).
Methods: This study was a systematic review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was used to retrieve all national and international studies in the field of FCEM. The final papers were reviewed for different methodological dimensions using three quantitative scales: Jadad, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, and Newcastle-Ottawa, and qualitative scale of Cochrane risk of bias.
Findings: In the initial search, 644 papers were retrieved; following PRISMA screening guideline, 47 relevant papers were recognized. Jadad scale scores showed that one study received a score of 5 and 33 received a score of less than 3. Consort scale scores indicated that four studies were scored 7 and the same number were scored less than 5. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores showed that 13 studies were scored 8, and 4 were scored less than 4. The five dimensions of Cochrane's risk of bias scale are detailed in the paper.
Conclusion: The methodological quality of applied studies based on the FCEM was relatively good, but their reporting style and quality were inadequate.
Full-Text [PDF 1273 kb]   (1194 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2020/11/25 | Accepted: 2020/11/30 | Published: 2020/11/30

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Health System Research

Designed & Developed by: Yektaweb