Adaptación cultural y evaluación de la fidedignidad del Cuestionario Infantil de Necesidades Especiales para el contexto brasileño

Ferreira, Larissa Tassim Luciano; Parra, Patrícia Casale; Okido, Aline Cristiane Cavicchioli

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. Gaúcha Enferm. 42 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2021.20200488 copiar

Adaptación cultural y evaluación de la fidedignidad del Cuestionario Infantil de Necesidades Especiales para el contexto brasileño

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMEN

Objetivo

Realizar la adaptación cultural del Cuestionario para niños con necesidades especiales al portugués brasileño y evaluar su fiabilidad.

Métodos

Estudio metodológico realizado entre septiembre de 2019 y junio de 2020 a partir de las etapas de traducción, retrotraducción, validación de contenido, validación semántica y prueba piloto. Se calcularon el índice de validación de contenido, el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach y el coeficiente de correlación intraclase.

Resultados

Después de la segunda ronda, la versión adaptada tuvo un Índice de Validación de Contenido superior a 0,80 en todos los ítems y fue considerada comprensible por las madres. La prueba piloto incluyó a 89 madres de niños nacidos prematuramente de la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Neonatales en la prueba y 44 en la reprueba. Todos los ítems tenían un Alfa de Cronbach superior a 0,70. De los 20 ítems, 15 mostraron confiabilidad moderada, tres alta y dos débil.

Conclusión

El instrumento demostró ser confiable y tiene potencial para identificar la fragmentación y discontinuidad de la atención recibida.

Palabras clave
Recien nacido prematuro; Continuidad de la atención al paciente; Estudio de validación; Niño; Enfermería pediátrica

Variables	n (%)
Education
Secondary school	20 (22.47)
Higher education	69 (77.53)
Place of origin
Southern Region of Brazil	21 (23.60)
Southeast Region of Brazil	49 (55.06)
Central-West Region of Brazil	5 (5.62)
Northeast Region of Brazil	10 (11.24)
Northern Region of Brazil	2 (2.25)
Outside Brazil/Abroad	2 (2.25)
Occupation
Household tasks	13 (14.61)
Informal work	3 (3.37)
Formal work	45 (50.56)
Self-employed	19 (21.35)
Unemployed	9 (10.11)
Marital status
With a partner	80 (89.89)
Without a partner	9 (10.11)
Other children
Yes	33 (37.08)
No	56 (62.92)
Health insurance plan
Yes	49 (55.06)
Health insurance plan + SUS	24 (26.97)
No	16 (17.98)

Variables	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Median	Maximum
Current age (years)	1.48	1.74	0.00	1.00	8.00
Gestational age at birth (weeks)	30.43	2.78	23.00	30.00	35.00
Birth weight (grams)	1363.7	535.26	415.00	1330.00	2550.00
Length of stay (days)	51	40	3	42	180
Number of readmissions	0.51	1.26	0.00	0.00	10.00

Factor	Number of items	Cronbach’s α
Factor 1	7	0.748
Factor 2	4	0.790
Factor 3	3	0.789
Factor 4	4	0.803
Factor 5	2	0.854

SpeNK-Q items	ICC (IC 95%)
About the doctor who takes care of your child
1. The doctor knows my child’s health history.	0.687 (0.491;0.816)
2. The doctor accepts my opinion regarding my child's health.	0.658 (0.450;0.798)
3. I feel comfortable talking to the doctor about any problems related to my child’s health.	0.647 (0.437;0.791)
About the health professional who takes care of all or almost all of the child's health problems
4. This health professional knows all of my child's health problems.	0.680 (0.481;0.812)
5. This health professional is always informed about the care provided by other healthcare professionals.	0.800 (0.662;0.885)
6. This health professional talks with other health professionals to learn about the care received by my child.	0.555 (0.316;0.729)
7. This health professional makes contact with me when my child is cared for by other health professionals.	0.688 (0.465;0.817)
About all health professionals involved in the care provided to the child in the last few months after discharge
8. The health professionals who took care of my (my) child told me different things about the health of my child.	0.408 (0.125;0.628)
9. Someone explained to me the possible complications of my child's medical condition regarding his/her health status.	0.217 (-0.073;0.476)
10. Someone explained to me what treatments and tests were being performed on my (my) child and why.	0.502 (0.241;0.694)
11. Someone guided me about the exams, consultations and evaluations of my child.	0.588 (0.354;0.752)
12. The health professional who made the home visits to my child did not know his/her health history.	0.308 (-1.583;0.934)
13. The health professional who made the home visits to my child did not have access to information from the last assessment, visit or examination.	0.500 (-0.709;0.983)
14. I had to provide again information that I had already given about the health of my (my) child, which should have been included in the medical record.	0.769 (0.613;0.867)
15. I had to report the results of an appointment with a specialist to the health professional who was making a home visit to my child.	0.893 (0.210;0.993)
16. The health professionals who took care of my child gave all the guidance I needed to take care of him (her) at home.	0.719 (0.538;0.837)
17. The health professionals who took care of my child gave me all the guidance I needed to face minor problems or complications.	0.490 (0.235;0.684)
18. I had the impression that the health professionals who took care of my child knew him/her well.	0.592 (0.364;0.753)
19. When my child's health changed or worsened, I got answers or directions immediately.	0.543 (0.294;0.752)
20. The care offered to my child by the health system made me feel helpless.	0.673 (0.475;0.807)

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Escola de Enfermagem Rua São Manoel, 963 -Campus da Saúde , 90.620-110 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brasil, Fone: (55 51) 3308-5242 / Fax: (55 51) 3308-5436 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: revista@enf.ufrgs.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author
Aline Cristiane Cavicchioli Okido E-mail: alineokido@ufscar.br