Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2019 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Smiderle, Fabiana Rosa Neves
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Mattiello, Rita
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/Pediatria e Saúde da Criança
|
| Departamento: |
Escola de Medicina
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/9929
|
Resumo: |
Introduction: Assessing the intensity of regret and how health professionals face it is extremely important for everyone involved in health care. However, in Brazil, there is a shortage of instruments that do not allow the evaluation of these latent traits. Objective: To validate the scales that assess the intensity of regret: Regret Intensity Scale, and the way of coping: Regret Coping Scale for Healthcare Professionals, for use in Brazil. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study carried out with professionals linked to tertiary care hospital institutions between the months of October 2018 and March 2019. The validation was carried out in two phases, in which the first was the translation of the instruments and the second, the validation of tools through field testing of psychometric properties, namely: validity and reliability of the scales with professionals (doctors, nurses and physiotherapists) linked to tertiary care hospital institutions. Validity was assessed using the following validities: content (judges' evaluation), criterion (correlation with Satisfaction With Life Scale – SWLS and Self-Reporting Questionnaire-20 – SRQ-20) and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis using the method of Promax rotation, based on the slope graph and Kaiser criterion and confirmatory using the structural equation model). Reliability was measured using Cronbach's α coefficient and the test retested in a maximum period of 30 days. Reproducibility was calculated by intraclass correlation. Results: 341 professionals participated in the study; the average age of the participants was 38.6 (± 9.2) years. Most of the sample was female, 217 (64%) and 190 (56%) were married. Nursing professionals 164 (48%), the items were quite consistent in the process of translating and back translating the two scales. The performance of the psychometric properties of the scales in relation to content validation was excellent (CVI = 1.00). The RIS-10 scale showed a satisfactory correlation in the exploratory factorial analysis (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.875), suggesting a two-factor model that represents 96.24% of the total variation in the first factor. At confirmation, the index (SRMR = 0.063) was close to acceptable and other values were below. The scale correlates positively with the SRQ-20 (rho = 0.40; p <0.001) and negatively with the LSS (rho = –0, 15; p <0.003). The reliability showed (Cronbach's α = 0.863) and the test-retest reliability showed lower values than expected. The RCS-HCP scale in the exploratory factor analysis showed adequacy of the structure (KMO = 0.786) composed of three factors. On confirmation, the performance was almost acceptable. The maladaptive coping strategy showed a positive correlation with the SRQ-20 questionnaire (rho = 0.441; p <0.001) and a negative correlation with the life satisfaction scale (rho = - 0.192; p <0.001). The domain of the RCS-HCP instrument focused on the problem was correlated with the SWLS (rho = 0.151; p <0.005). The α Cronbach coefficient for the dimensions: focused on the problem (α = 0.717), maladaptive (α = 0.834) and adaptive (α = 0.595). The retest test showed lower values than expected. The Spearman-Brown coefficient of 0.703. Conclusion: The Regret Intensity Scale and Regret Coping Scale for Healthcare Professionals showed an adequate performance in relation to the psychometric properties evaluated for validity and reliability. |
