Psychometric Properties of a Standardized Questionnaire of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Iranian Medical Specialists about Viral Hepatitis

Development and Validation of Eyes Care Bundle for Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Lack of proper eye care (EC) for mechanically ventilated patients can lead to serious ocular complications. Objective of this study is to develop and validate eyes care bundle for mechanically ventilated patients. A Delphi design study was conducted between March and May 2021. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to calculate the degree of agreement among the experts to analyze the bundle. Content validity was determined by 5 experts using a 4-point Likert scale. They evaluated the items in terms of the following: 1 = "irrelevant," 2 = "somewhat relevant if the phrasing is profoundly adjusted," 3 = "relevant with some adjustment," and 4 = "very relevant." The CVI was applied, and the accepted value was ≥0.50. The validation of EC bundle was conducted through 3 rounds after developed it based on the evaluated research evidence. The items were reviewed for content and face validity. The bundle was validated with 5 items with a total CVI of 0.96, a face validity of 1, and a Scale-Level Content Validity Index/Universal Agreement calculation method value of 0.8. This bundle can help critical care nurses, doctors, academics, and students assess and provide standard EC for mechanically ventilated patients.

Development and Validation of a Red Flag Prediction Model for Admission of COVID-19 Patients to the Intensive Care Unit

We aimed to develop and validate a model for the criteria for admission of COVID-19 patients to the intensive care unit (ICU). A Delphi design study was conducted. The content validity index (CVI) was used to determine the degree of agreement among the experts to validate the content of the admission criteria tool. Eleven experts determined the validity. The evaluation was conducted using a 4-point rating scale. The accepted CVI value was 0.50 and more. The model was validated with 31 items in the 5 dimensions, with the item-CVI of 1, a face validity index of 1, and a scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) value of 1. We have developed and validated a red flag prediction model for ICU admission of COVID-19 patients. The accurate implementation of this model could improve the outcomes of those patients and possibly decrease mortality.

Development of a Discharge Criteria Checklist for COVID-19 Patients From the Intensive Care Unit

This study aims to develop and validate a checklist of discharge readiness criteria for COVID-19 patients from the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a Delphi design study. The degree of agreement among 7 experts had been evaluated using the content validity index (CVI) through a 4-point Likert scale. The instrument was validated with 17 items. All the experts rated all items as very relevant which scored the item-CVI 1, which validates all checklist items. Using the mean of all items, the scale-CVI was calculated, and it was 1. This meant validation of the checklist as a whole. With regard to the overall checklist evaluation, the mean expert proportion of the instrument was 1, and the S-CVI/UA was 1. This discharge criteria checklist improves transition of care for COVID-19 patients and can help nurses, doctors, and academics to discharge COVID-19 patients from the ICU safely.

Development and validation of a daily assessment tool for critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Patients in intensive care units require comprehensive care. Hence, improving health care quality depends on accurate assessment and documentation.

AIM

To develop and validate the content of an assessment sheet for critically ill patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A Delphi design study was conducted between January and March 2020. The content validity index (CVI) was used to calculate the degree of agreement among the experts to analyse the instrument and the entire set of items. Content validity was determined by seven experts (three critical care nursing professionals, two critical care doctors, and two anaesthesiologists) using a four-point Likert scale. They evaluated the items in terms of the following: 1 = "irrelevant," 2 = "somewhat relevant if the phrasing is profoundly adjusted," 3 = "relevant with some adjustment as to phrasing," and 4 = "very relevant." The CVI was applied, and the accepted value was ≥0.50.

RESULTS

Three rounds of evaluation were required to achieve the minimum index. The items were reviewed for content and face validity. The instrument was validated with 86 items with a total CVI of 0.90, a face validity of 1, and a scale-level content validity index/universal agreement calculation method (S-CVI/UA) value of 0.813.

CONCLUSION

This instrument can help nurses, doctors, academics, and students assess patients in intensive care units.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Further research should be conducted to assess the construct validity and reliability of this newly developed instrument. It can then be recommended for use in intensive care units because of its ability to improve the management of the care of critically ill patients.

Designing and standardizing a questionnaire for evaluating knowledge, attitude, and practice of Iranian adults with cardiovascular diseases about oral health

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of death in Iran. Moreover, periodontal diseases are very common in our country. In this study, we have designed a standardized questionnaire for evaluating knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of Iranian adult patients with cardiovascular diseases about oral health.

METHODS

For designing and standardizing a self-administered questionnaire, we performed a cross-sectional pilot study on 51 cases with periodontal complaints. A dentist carried out the physical examination to determine oral health indicators. Twelve experts and ten lay people of the target population answered questions about validity. Cronbach's alpha, factor analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficients were used in the analysis.

RESULTS

The cases of this pilot study were middle aged, with moderate financial and health status, but low oral health and educational level. Debris score was correlated with all other physical exam findings except decay, missing, and filled (DMF). Reliability was 0.826 according to Cronbach's alpha score. Face validity was higher than 80%. Content validities of the whole of the questionnaire were 85.98% for clarity, 78.05% for relevancy, 85.16% for simplicity, and 82.32% for consistency of each question with the question set. Factor analysis showed that 15 components explain 74% of the total variance.

CONCLUSION

This questionnaire is culturally adjusted and appropriate for our community, valid and reliable, and sufficiently estimates the variance of the oral health status. It can be used as a standard tool in further studies in adult population of the Iranian middle aged patients with low level of education and moderate socioeconomic status.