Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and ICU Mobility Scale: translation and cultural adaptation for Portuguese language spoken in Brazil
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
44
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
Editora
SOC BRASILEIRA PNEUMOLOGIA TISIOLOGIA
Indexadores
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
NAWA, Ricardo Kenji
MARTINS, Lourdes
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
JORNAL BRASILEIRO DE PNEUMOLOGIA, v.42, n.6, p.429-434, 2016
Resumo
Objetivo: Realizar a tradução e a validação cultural para a língua portuguesa falada no Brasil e determinar a concordância e a confiabilidade dos instrumentos Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score (designado Perme Escore) e ICU Mobility Scale (designada Escala de Mobilidade em UTI, EMU). Métodos: Os processos de tradução e adaptação cultural seguiram as seguintes etapas: preparação, tradução, reconciliação, síntese, tradução reversa, revisão, aprovação e pré-teste. Após esses processos, as versões em português dos dois instrumentos foram utilizadas por dois pesquisadores na avaliação de pacientes críticos em UTI. O índice kappa ponderado e a disposição gráfica de Bland-Altman foram utilizados para verificar a concordância entre os instrumentos. O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach foi utilizado para verificar a confiabilidade entre as respostas dos avaliadores dentro de cada domínio dos instrumentos. A correlação entre os instrumentos foi verificada pelo teste de correlação de Spearman. Resultados: A amostra foi composta por 103 pacientes, sendo a maioria homens (n = 56; 54%), com média de idade = 52 ± 18 anos. O principal motivo de internação nas UTIs foi insuficiência respiratória (em 44%). Os dois instrumentos apresentaram excelente concordância interobservador (κ > 0,90) e confiabilidade (α > 0,90) em todos os domínios. Constatou-se um baixo viés interobservador na EMU e no Perme Escore (−0,048 ± 0,350 e −0,06 ± 0,73, respectivamente). Os IC95% para os mesmos instrumentos variaram, respectivamente, de −0,73 a 0,64 e de −1,50 a 1,36, respectivamente. Além disso, verificou-se alta correlação positiva entre os dois instrumentos (r = 0,941; p < 0,001). Conclusões: As versões dos dois instrumentos apresentaram alta concordância e confiabilidade interobservador.
Objective: To translate the Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) into Portuguese, creating versions that are cross-culturally adapted for use in Brazil, and to determine the interobserver agreement and reliability for both versions. Methods: The processes of translation and cross-cultural validation consisted in the following: preparation, translation, reconciliation, synthesis, back-translation, review, approval, and pre-test. The Portuguese-language versions of both instruments were then used by two researchers to evaluate critically ill ICU patients. Weighted kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots were used in order to verify interobserver agreement for the two instruments. In each of the domains of the instruments, interobserver reliability was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The correlation between the instruments was assessed by Spearman’s correlation test. Results: The study sample comprised 103 patients—56 (54%) of whom were male—with a mean age of 52 ± 18 years. The main reason for ICU admission (in 44%) was respiratory failure. Both instruments showed excellent interobserver agreement (κ > 0.90) and reliability (α > 0.90) in all domains. Interobserver bias was low for the IMS and the Perme Score (−0.048 ± 0.350 and −0.06 ± 0.73, respectively). The 95% CIs for the same instruments ranged from −0.73 to 0.64 and −1.50 to 1.36, respectively. There was also a strong positive correlation between the two instruments (r = 0.941; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In their versions adapted for use in Brazil, both instruments showed high interobserver agreement and reliability.
Objective: To translate the Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) into Portuguese, creating versions that are cross-culturally adapted for use in Brazil, and to determine the interobserver agreement and reliability for both versions. Methods: The processes of translation and cross-cultural validation consisted in the following: preparation, translation, reconciliation, synthesis, back-translation, review, approval, and pre-test. The Portuguese-language versions of both instruments were then used by two researchers to evaluate critically ill ICU patients. Weighted kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots were used in order to verify interobserver agreement for the two instruments. In each of the domains of the instruments, interobserver reliability was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The correlation between the instruments was assessed by Spearman’s correlation test. Results: The study sample comprised 103 patients—56 (54%) of whom were male—with a mean age of 52 ± 18 years. The main reason for ICU admission (in 44%) was respiratory failure. Both instruments showed excellent interobserver agreement (κ > 0.90) and reliability (α > 0.90) in all domains. Interobserver bias was low for the IMS and the Perme Score (−0.048 ± 0.350 and −0.06 ± 0.73, respectively). The 95% CIs for the same instruments ranged from −0.73 to 0.64 and −1.50 to 1.36, respectively. There was also a strong positive correlation between the two instruments (r = 0.941; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In their versions adapted for use in Brazil, both instruments showed high interobserver agreement and reliability.
Palavras-chave
Modalidades de fisioterapia, Unidades de terapia intensiva, Traduções, Estudos de validação, Physical therapy modalities, Intensive care units, Translations, Validation studies
Referências
- Beaton DE, 2000, SPINE, V25, P3186, DOI 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
- Burtin C, 2009, CRIT CARE MED, V37, P2499, DOI 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a38937
- Tavares MGD, 2010, J BRAS PNEUMOL, V36, P683, DOI 10.1590/S1806-37132010000600004
- Denehy L, 2013, CRIT CARE, V17, DOI 10.1186/cc12835
- Hodgson C, 2014, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V43, P19, DOI 10.1016/J.HRTING.2013.11.003
- Lima NP, 2015, J BRAS PNEUMOL, V41, P225, DOI 10.1590/S1806-37132015000004338
- MAHONEY F I, 1965, Md State Med J, V14, P61
- Montagnani G, 2011, PHYS THER, V91, P1109, DOI 10.2522/ptj.20100369
- Morris PE, 2008, CRIT CARE MED, V36, P2238, DOI 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318180b90e
- Morris PE, 2007, CRIT CARE CLIN, V23, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.ccc.2006.11.003
- Nassar AP, 2008, SAO PAULO MED J, V126, P215, DOI 10.1590/S1516-31802008000400003
- Nawa RK, 2014, J CRIT CARE, V29, DOI 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.01.019
- Needham DM, 2010, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V91, P536, DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.002
- Parry SM, 2015, INTENS CARE MED, V41, P744, DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-3672-x
- Parry SM, 2015, CRIT CARE, V19, DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0829-5
- Perme Christiane, 2014, Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J, V10, P41
- Schweickert WD, 2009, LANCET, V373, P1874, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9
- Skinner EH, 2009, CRIT CARE RESUSC, V11, P110
- Terwee CB, 2007, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V60, P34, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
- Thrush A, 2012, PHYS THER, V92, P1536, DOI 10.2522/ptj.20110412
- Wild D, 2005, VALUE HEALTH, V8, P94, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x