Validación de la versión española del cuestionario sobre la práctica basada en la evidencia en enfermería

Background: The lack of adequate instruments prevents the possibility of assessing the competence of health care staff in evidence-based decision making and further, the identification of areas for improvement with tailored strategies. The aim of this study is to report about the validation process in the Spanish context of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) from Upton y Upton. Methods: A multicentre, cross-sectional, descriptive psychometric validation study was carried out. For cultural adaptation, a bidirectional translation was developed, accordingly to usual standards. The measuring model from the questionnaire was undergone to contrast, reproducing the original structure by Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA), including the reliability of factors. Results: Both EFA (57.545% of total variance explained) and CFA (chi2=2359,9555; gl=252; p<0.0001; RMSEA=0,1844; SRMR=0,1081), detected problems with items 7, 16, 22, 23 and 24, regarding to the original trifactorial version of EBPQ. After deleting some questions, a reduced version containing 19 items obtained an adequate factorial structure (62.29% of total variance explained), but the CFA did not fit well. Nevertheless, it was significantly better than the original version (chi2=673.1261; gl=149; p<0.0001; RMSEA=0.1196; SRMR=0.0648). Conclusions: The trifactorial model obtained good empiric evidence and could be used in our context, but the results invite to advance with further refinements into the factor “attitude”, testing it in more contexts and with more diverse professional profiles.

Bladder cancer index: cross-cultural adaptation into Spanish and psychometric evaluation.

BACKGROUND The Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) is so far the only instrument applicable across all bladder cancer patients, independent of tumor infiltration or treatment applied. We developed a Spanish version of the BCI, and assessed its acceptability and metric properties. METHODS For the adaptation into Spanish we used the forward and back-translation method, expert panels, and cognitive debriefing patient interviews. For the assessment of metric properties we used data from 197 bladder cancer patients from a multi-center prospective study. The Spanish BCI and the SF-36 Health Survey were self-administered before and 12 months after treatment. Reliability was estimated by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed through the multi-trait multi-method matrix. The magnitude of change was quantified by effect sizes to assess responsiveness. RESULTS Reliability coefficients ranged 0.75-0.97. The validity analysis confirmed moderate associations between the BCI function and bother subscales for urinary (r = 0.61) and bowel (r = 0.53) domains; conceptual independence among all BCI domains (r ≤ 0.3); and low correlation coefficients with the SF-36 scores, ranging 0.14-0.48. Among patients reporting global improvement at follow-up, pre-post treatment changes were statistically significant for the urinary domain and urinary bother subscale, with effect sizes of 0.38 and 0.53. CONCLUSIONS The Spanish BCI is well accepted, reliable, valid, responsive, and similar in performance compared to the original instrument. These findings support its use, both in Spanish and international studies, as a valuable and comprehensive tool for assessing quality of life across a wide range of bladder cancer patients.