Suppr超能文献

用于评估产科伴有风险分类的接待服务质量的工具内容的编制与验证。

Preparation and validation of the content of an instrument to assess the quality of services of reception with risk classification in obstetrics.

作者信息

de Oliveira Dannielly Azevedo, Ferreira Douglissandra de Morais, Lisboa Lilian Lira, Nobre Thaiza Teixeira Xavier

机构信息

Postgraduate Program in Public Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.

Department of Letters, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2024 Dec 30;19(12):e0315816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315816. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The expectations and needs of users and those assisting determine the quality of services. It becomes a priority to understand how all elements involved in the care process perceive the quality of the services offered, aiming to intervene promptly and organize them to satisfy the needs of both and improve the assistance provided.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and carry out content validation of an instrument for evaluating the quality of the Reception service with Risk Classification in obstetrics with evaluation dimensions for users, health professionals, and managers.

METHODOLOGY

This is a methodological study for constructing and validating content. Consider the Pasquali Model, following the theoretical pole's component steps and the empirical's beginning. An instrument was created and divided into 3 modules: with a dimension for the user (module 1), health workers (module 2), and manager (module 3), created based on the theoretical framework according to Donabedian and the objectives proposed by the World Health Organization and Brazilian Ministry of Health. Validated for content by a committee of judges (experts) specializing in the area of the instrument. The analysis was carried out based on the committee's agreement rate, Content Validity Index (CVI), and Kappa index for the evaluation and achievement of the ideal parameters of agreement and content validity of the tool among the judges.

RESULTS

The results suggest that the tool has good content validity. CVI, Kappa, and CI were evaluated above 0.8. Item values considered lower than 0.8 were excluded.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the tool has good content validity, and the pilot test stage can be continued to complete the validation process.

摘要

引言

用户及其协助者的期望和需求决定了服务质量。了解护理过程中所有相关要素如何看待所提供服务的质量成为当务之急,旨在及时进行干预并组织安排,以满足双方需求并改善所提供的护理服务。

目的

开发并实施一项用于评估产科分诊服务质量的工具的内容效度验证,该工具具有针对用户、卫生专业人员和管理人员的评估维度及风险分类。

方法

这是一项构建和验证内容的方法学研究。参考帕斯夸利模型,遵循理论极点的组成步骤和实证研究的开端。创建了一个工具并分为3个模块:基于多纳贝迪安的理论框架以及世界卫生组织和巴西卫生部提出的目标,创建了针对用户的维度(模块1)、卫生工作者的维度(模块2)和管理人员的维度(模块3)。由专门从事该工具领域的评审委员会(专家)对内容进行验证。基于评审委员会成员的一致率、内容效度指数(CVI)和卡帕指数进行分析评估,以确定该工具在评审人员之间的一致性和内容效度的理想参数是否达成。

结果

结果表明该工具具有良好的内容效度。CVI、卡帕值和CI的评估结果均高于0.8 。将被认为低于0.8的项目值排除。

结论

结果表明该工具具有良好的内容效度,可以继续进行试点测试阶段以完成验证过程。

相似文献

2
[Construction and validation of an instrument to assess the Reception with Risk Rating].
Rev Bras Enferm. 2012 Sep-Oct;65(5):751-7. doi: 10.1590/s0034-71672012000500006.
4
Development and content validation of a risk classification instrument.
Rev Bras Enferm. 2024 Sep 6;77(4):e20230502. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2023-0502. eCollection 2024.
6
CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF THE NEONATAL NUTRITIONAL RISK SCREENING TOOL.
Rev Paul Pediatr. 2020 Dec 18;39:e2020026. doi: 10.1590/1984-0462/2021/39/2020026. eCollection 2020.
9
Mobile persuasive technology for the teaching and learning in surgical safety: Content validation.
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Dec;71:129-134. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.030. Epub 2018 Sep 29.
10
Validation of the american quality assessment model and performance improvement to the brazilian transplant.
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2020 Feb 14;28:e3252. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.3249.3252. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

3
Rede Cegonha network and the methodological challenges of implementing networks in the SUS.
Cien Saude Colet. 2021 Mar;26(3):775-780. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232021263.21462020. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
4
Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity.
Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017 Jul-Sep;26(3):649-659. doi: 10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022.
5
Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns-the WHO vision.
BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1045-9. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13451. Epub 2015 May 1.
6
[Content validity in the development and adaptation processes of measurement instruments].
Cien Saude Colet. 2011 Jul;16(7):3061-8. doi: 10.1590/s1413-81232011000800006.
7
Mail versus internet surveys: determinants of method of response preferences among health professionals.
Eval Health Prof. 2007 Jun;30(2):186-201. doi: 10.1177/0163278707300634.
8
Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?
Fam Pract. 2003 Oct;20(5):545-51. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg509.
9
Dimensions of quality revisited: from thought to action.
Qual Health Care. 1992 Sep;1(3):171-7. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.3.171.
10
The quality of care. How can it be assessed?
JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.260.12.1743.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验