Psychometric Properties Evaluation Of A New Ergonomics-related Job Factors Questionnaire Developed For Nursing Workers.

The objectives of this study were to develop a questionnaire that evaluates the perception of nursing workers to job factors that may contribute to musculoskeletal symptoms, and to evaluate its psychometric properties. Internationally recommended methodology was followed: construction of domains, items and the instrument as a whole, content validity, and pre-test. Psychometric properties were evaluated among 370 nursing workers. Construct validity was analyzed by the factorial analysis, known-groups technique, and convergent validity. Reliability was assessed through internal consistency and stability. Results indicated satisfactory fit indices during confirmatory factor analysis, significant difference (p < 0.01) between the responses of nursing and office workers, and moderate correlations between the new questionnaire and Numeric Pain Scale, SF-36 and WRFQ. Cronbach's alpha was close to 0.90 and ICC values ranged from 0.64 to 0.76. Therefore, results indicated that the new questionnaire had good psychometric properties for use in studies involving nursing workers.

P16(ink) (4a) Expression As A Potential Marker Of Low-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Progression.

To evaluate p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in CIN1 lesions looking for differences between cases that progress to CIN2/3 maintain CIN1 diagnosis, or spontaneously regress. Seventy-four CIN1 biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy was performed and 28.7% showed no lesion (regression), 37.9% maintained CIN1, and 33.4% progressed to CIN2/3. Immunostaining for p16(INK) (4a) was performed in the first biopsy and it was considered positive when there was strong and diffuse staining of the basal and parabasal layers. Pearson's chi-square was used to compare the groups (p ≤ 0.05). The age of the patients was similar. There was no significant difference in p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in the groups, however, statistical analyses showed a significant association when only the progression and regression groups were compared (p = 0.042). Considering p16(INK) (4a) positivity and the progression to CIN2/3, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values in our cohort were 45%, 75%, 47%, and 94%, respectively. We emphasize that CIN1 with p16(INK) (4a) staining was associated with lesion progression, but the sensitivity was not high. However, the negative predictive value was more reliable (94%) and p16(INK) (4a) may represent a useful biomarker that can identify CIN1 lesions that need particular attention, complementing morphology.