Search

Objective: To systematically review evidence on the coverage, content validity and internal structure of self-report measures capturing subjective aspects of participation for adults with disabilities., Data Sources: EMBASE, MEDLINE and reference lists were searched until July 10 th , 2022 for articles on measurement properties of instruments measuring participation as defined in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, from a subjective perspective., Method: Each instrument was assessed for its coverage of subjective aspects of participation. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments were used to assess the quality of each study. Content validity and internal structure (structural validity, internal consistency and cross-cultural validity) were rated against published standards and qualified by the adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation., Results: Thirty-eight studies regarding 10 instruments were analysed. Most instruments mix activity and participation items. Only the Measure of Experiential Aspects of Participation (with high-quality evidence of sufficient structural validity and generally sufficient internal consistency), the Participation Enfranchisement and the Community Integration Measure showed adequate coverage. For all instruments, evidence of content validity is of low- to very low quality. There is high-quality evidence that the Participation Scale is not unidimensional., Conclusion: In general, the coverage and the evidence for content validity and internal structure of measures capturing experiential aspects of participation are limited. The Measure of Experiential Aspects of Participation has the best level of evidence in support of its use. The score of the Participation Scale cannot be considered an adequate reflection of participation.

Background: Family-centered practice (FCP) is widely accepted as a best practice in pediatric rehabilitation. However, its implementation in Brazil is incipient, and systematic documentation of the extent to which it has been achieved is not available., Objectives: To determine parents' and service providers' perceptions of family-centeredness and specific areas in need of improvement in four rehabilitation hospitals., Methods: A total of 107 caregivers and 89 service providers responded to the Measure of Processes of Care-20 (MPOC-20) and the Measure of Processes of Care for Service providers (MPOC-SP), respectively. The MPOC questionnaires evaluate FCP from the point of view of parents and rehabilitation professionals. Domain scores within each questionnaire were compared with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. MPOC items with low scores (from 1-4 out of 7 by 33% or more of respondents) were considered to indicate weaknesses in service delivery., Results: Median MPOC-20 scores varied from 5.2 (4.7, 5.8) (Providing General Information) to 7.0 (6.0, 7.0) (Enabling and Partnership). The Providing General Information scores were significantly lower than those of other domains (p <  0.003). The MPOC-SP scores varied from 4.8 (4.0, 5.8) (Providing General Information) to 6.1 (5.8, 6.6) (Treating People Respectfully). Scores for Treating People Respectfully were significantly higher (p <  0.0001) and Providing General Information scores significantly lower (p <  0.0001) than those of the other domains. Most items with high percentages of low scores were from the domain Providing General Information., Conclusion: Except for Providing General Information, the results indicated that services implement FCP "to a fairly great extent," comparing favorably to international data. Provision of information can be improved., (Copyright © 2021 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC) questionnaires evaluate Family-Centered Practice (FCP) in services for children with developmental disorders. The MPOC-20 and MPOC-SP are completed by parents and by rehabilitation professionals, respectively, and are widely used in several countries., Objectives: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the MPOC-20 and MPOC-SP to Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate their reliability and internal consistency., Methods: this study included translation, back-translation, cognitive interviews, testing of the pre-final versions, analysis of reliability and of internal consistency of the final versions. Respondents included parents and rehabilitation professionals from rehabilitation centers in four capital cities in Brazil., Results: Translation and cultural-adaptation procedures ensured the Brazilian versions were understandable and semantically equivalent to the original MPOC-20 and MPOC-SP. Pre-final and final versions were analyzed and vetted by the original authors. The MPOC-20 internal consistency Cronbach's alpha varied between 0.61 and 0.91 (n=107), the test-retest reliability ICC varied between 0.44 and 0.83 and the standard error of measurement varied between 0.66 and 0.85 (n=50). The MPOC-SP internal consistency Cronbach's alpha varied between 0.52 and 0.83 (n=92), the test-retest reliability ICC between 0.83 and 0.90, and the standard error of measure between 0.34 and 0.46 (n=62)., Conclusion: The Brazilian versions of the MPOC-20 and the MPOC-SP are in general stable and sufficiently reliable. They are relevant to the evaluation of FCP and provide information that can improve health services and ensure better care., (Copyright © 2019 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)