ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2024
Structural validity of the Brazilian version of the quality care questionnaire-palliative care for use in individuals with diabetes mellitus eligible for palliative care.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Brazilian version of the Quality Care Questionnaire-Palliative Care (QCQ-PC) is an instrument designed to assess the quality of care provided in palliative care from the user's perspective, featuring easy comprehension and applicability. It has demonstrated validity for use in individuals with cancer, but there is a need for validation in other populations due to the scarcity of instruments with this purpose.
objectiveTo structurally validate the Brazilian version of the QCQ-PC for use in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) eligible for palliative care.
methodsThis is a structural validation study of a questionnaire according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The study was conducted with 100 individuals with DM. Data collection occurred in differents care services in São Luís (northeast Brazil) by means of the application of the QCQ-PC and a form with sociodemographic, clinical, and daily habit data. Descriptive data analysis was performed using absolute values, relative frequencies, and measures of central tendency and dispersion. Structural validity was assessed by means of exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
resultsOf the 100 participants included in the study, 66% were female, 54% were single, with a median age of 64 years, 44% were overweight (44%), 77% were on polypharmacy, and 70% were physically inactive. We found that one domain is the most appropriate for use of the QCQ-PC in individuals with DM eligible for palliative care, according to the parallel analysis implemented in the EFA. This domain was named "quality of care". The fit indices for this one-dimensional internal structure were adequate: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test = 0.71, p value < 0.01 in Bartlett's test, chi-square/degree of freedom = 1.07, comparative fit index = 0.993, Tucker-Lewis index. = 0.991, root mean square error of approximation = 0.028. The QCQ-PC presented factor loadings ranging from 0.480 to 0.883, maintaining a total of 12 items, which demonstrates the adequate relationship between the quality of care domain and its items.
conclusionTherefore, the internal structure with one domain (quality of care) is the most suitable for use in individuals with DM eligible for palliative care by means of the QCQ-PC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.