Content validation of the nursing diagnosis Risk for disturbed maternal-fetal dyad

Abstract

Objective: To validate the content of the diagnosis Risk for disturbed maternal-fetal dyad in high-risk pregnant women. Method: Nursing diagnosis content analysis study in which 48 nurses evaluated agreement regarding title, definition, class, and domain of the studied nursing diagnosis, as well as the relevance of its antecedents. The items were considered relevant when the Confidence Interval of the Content Validity Index was 0.8 or higher. When lower, the item was modified or excluded according to the experts’ suggestions. Results: Out of 21 antecedents, 14 were considered relevant. The labels of five elements considered irrelevant were changed, and one item was excluded. The experts did not choose the title and definition proposed by NANDA-I, preferring instead the ones suggested in this study. The experts agreed with the class and domain proposed by the taxonomy. Conclusion: Ten risk factors, four populations at risk, and six associated conditions for this nursing diagnosis were maintained; these may provide a basis for nursing practice. The phase of clinical validation is suggested to be conducted to corroborate this study’s results.

Clinical validation of the nursing diagnosis risk for disturbed maternal–fetal dyad in high‐risk pregnancy: A case–control study

“…The form also contained the operational definitions of the etiological factors (risk factors, populations at risk, and associated conditions) of the ND risk for disturbed maternal–fetal dyad among high‐risk pregnant women, which was assessed by an expert panel in a previous study (Mendes et al., 2021). This study assessed these factors to determine their presence or absence.…”

“…It is defined as "at risk for disruption of the symbiotic maternal-fetal dyad as a result of comorbidity or pregnancy-related conditions" (Herdman et al, 2021). This ND can be identified among high-risk pregnant women, as they are more susceptible to gestational risks, potentially leading to unfavorable outcomes for the mother-fetus dyad (Gomes et al, 2020;Mendes et al, 2021). NDs must be clearly defined and present elements that favor the nurses' diagnostic reasoning and clinical judgment for this condition to be accurately identified (Lopes & Silva, 2016).…”

“…The judges assessed the two defining attributes and the content of the elements identified in the concept analysis. Thus, 10 risk factors, 4 at‐risk populations, and 6 associated conditions were considered valid (Mendes et al., 2021).…”

Disrupted mother-fetus dyad risk in high-risk pregnancies: a Middle-Range Theory

“…There are published studies on concept analysis, content validation, and clinical validation of the nursing diagnosis “Disrupted Mother-Fetus Dyad Risk” ( 1 , 12 - 13 ) . However, a review of the scientific literature shows that no studies have yet addressed MRT for this phenomenon, making this study essential.…”

A retrospective descriptive study of NANDA‐I nursing diagnoses used by midwives working in obstetrics and gynecologic service: An example from south‐eastern Turkey

“…Among them are those that might be identified as “Midwifery Diagnoses” since they are directly or indirectly associated with midwifery. Examples include “Risk for Disturbed Maternal‐Fetal Dyad (00209) (Mendes et al., 2021), Sexual Dysfunction in Pregnant Women (00059) (Carteiro et al., 2017), and Ineffective breastfeeding (00104) (Alvarenga et al., 2018)” for directly related diagnoses, and “Fatigue (00093) (Zuchatti et al., 2022), Powerlessness (00125) (Apolônio et al., 2021), and Risk for Delayed Child Development (00305) (Melo et al., 2022)” for indirectly related diagnoses (Herdman et al., 2021).…”