Search

Background: As health services research (HSR) expands across the globe, researchers will adopt health services and health worker evaluation instruments developed in one country for use in another. This paper explores the cross-cultural methodological challenges involved in translating HSR in the language and context of different health systems. Objectives: To describe the pre-data collection systematic translation process used in a twelve country, eleven language nursing workforce survey. Design and settings: We illustrate the potential advantages of Content Validity Indexing (CVI) techniques to validate a nursing workforce survey developed for RN4CAST, a twelve country (Belgium, England, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland), eleven language (with modifications for regional dialects, including Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish), comparative nursing workforce study in Europe. Participants: Expert review panels comprised of practicing nurses from twelve European countries who evaluated cross-cultural relevance, including translation, of a nursing workforce survey instrument developed by experts in the field. Methods: The method described in this paper used Content Validity Indexing (CVI) techniques with chance correction and provides researchers with a systematic approach for standardizing language translation processes while simultaneously evaluating the cross-cultural applicability of a survey instrument in the new context. Results: The cross-cultural evaluation process produced CVI scores for the instrument ranging from .61 to .95. The process successfully identified potentially problematic survey items and errors with translation. Conclusions: The translation approach described here may help researchers reduce threats to data validity and improve instrument reliability in multinational health services research studies involving comparisons across health systems and language translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PARAMEDIC cluster randomised trial evaluated the LUCAS mechanical chest compression device, and did not find evidence that use of mechanical chest compression led to an improvement in survival at 30 days. This paper reports patient outcomes from admission to hospital to 12 months after randomisation.Methods: Information about hospital length of stay and intensive care management was obtained through linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics and the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre. Patients surviving to hospital discharge were approached to complete questionnaires (SF-12v2, EQ-5D, MMSE, HADS and PTSD-CL) at 90days and 12 months. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942.Results: 377 patients in the LUCAS arm and 658 patients in the manual chest compression were admitted to hospital. Hospital and intensive care length of stay were similar. Long term follow-up assessments were limited by poor response rates (53.7% at 3 months and 55.6% at 12 months). Follow-up rates were lower in those with worse neurological function. Among respondents, long term health related quality of life outcomes and emotional well-being was similar between groups. Cognitive function, measured by MMSE, was marginally lower in the LUCAS arm mean 26.9 (SD 3.7) compared to control mean 28.0 (SD 2.3), adjusted mean difference -1.5 (95% CI -2.6 to -0.4).Conclusion: There were no clinically important differences identified in outcomes at long term follow-up between those allocated to the mechanical chest compression compared to those receiving manual chest compression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: As cardiovascular diseases have become the leading cause of death in many countries including China, nurses are increasingly required to be abreast of technological advances and the skills necessary to manage this increasing health care problem. Chinese nurses are under pressure to provide skilled electrocardiography monitoring, and be sufficiently skilled to detect myocardial ischemia and infarction, in this large patient population. This presents a challenge for the nursing profession in China, particularly for nurses working in coronary care in a country where advancement has been so rapid, yet little research has been conducted or reported in the literature. Objectives: The two main objectives were: to explore the demographic and educational factors that affect the use of ST-segment monitoring and correct electrode placement by CCU/ICU nurses in China; and to explore the factors both individual and institutional that affect monitoring and lead placement. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to nurses in 126 randomly selected tertiary hospitals, which were stratified into three homogeneous regions across China. The instrument examined demographics, information about hospitals, electrocardiogram devices, current practice patterns and perceptions toward monitoring and lead placement. Data from 734 nurses and 59 nurse managers from 59 hospitals were analyzed using t-tests, ANOVA, Chi-square test and logistic regression. Results: Electrocardiogram monitoring was used to detect myocardial ischemia by 43.7% of respondents, and 35.1% selected leads according to electrocardiogram or angiography findings. Most (70%) agreed that monitoring for acute coronary syndrome was important, while 39.2% did so, and 15.7% were able to identify correct placement. Logistic regression revealed a significant relationship between the uses of ST-segment monitoring and number of hospital beds, continuing education and a belief in its use and ease of use. Correct electrode placement was significantly correlated with respondents from university hospitals, hospitals with more acute coronary syndrome admissions and more independent thinking nurses. Conclusions: Despite best practice evidence, less than half of the sample used electrocardiogram monitoring to detect myocardial ischemia and the majority could not identify correct electrode placement, while ST-segment monitoring was not used routinely. This paper highlights the need for improvements in education both in universities and hospitals and discussion addresses conventions in units, which inhibit development of nurses’ skills. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]