Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 89. Num. 1.01 July 2018
Pages 1-66
Visits
450
Vol. 89. Num. 1.01 July 2018
Pages 1-66
Original Article
DOI: 10.1016/j.anpede.2017.08.006
Open Access
Spanish translation and validation of the EMPATHIC-30 questionnaire to measure parental satisfaction in intensive care units
Traducción y validación al español del cuestionario EMPATHIC-30 para medir la satisfacción de los padres en cuidados intensivos
Visits
450
Francisco Javier Pilar Orivea,
Corresponding author
, Jasone Basabe Lozanoa, Aurora López Zuñigaa, Yolanda M. López Fernándeza, Julene Escudero Argaluzab, Jos M. Latourc
a Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos, Hospital Universitario de Cruces, Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain
b Unidad de Epidemiología Clínica y Soporte Metodológico, Hospital Universitario de Cruces, Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain
c School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom
This item has received
450
Visits

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (5)
Table 1. Characteristics of the children and their families.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis by item. Mean and Cronbach α.
Table 3. Correlations between the different domains and the overall satisfaction items.
Table 4. Comparative analysis of each domain by key characteristics: type of admission (planned/urgent; surgical/medical) and use of mechanical ventilation (yes/no).
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Introduction

Few validated surveys measuring parental satisfaction in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) are available, and none of them in Spanish language. The aim of this study is to translate and validate the questionnaire EMpowerment of PArents in THe Intensive Care (EMPATHIC). This questionnaire measures parental perceptions of paediatric intensive care-related satisfaction items in the Spanish language.

Material and methods

A prospective cohort study was carried out using questionnaires completed by relatives of children (range 0–17 years old) admitted into a tertiary PICU. Inclusion criteria were a length of stay more than 24h, and a suitable understanding of Spanish language by parents or guardians. Exclusion criteria were re-admissions and deceased patients. The questionnaire was translated from English to Spanish language using a standardised procedure, after which it was used in a cross-sectional observational study in order to confirm its validity and consistency. Reliability was estimated using Cronbach's α, and content validity using Spearman's correlation analysis.

Results

A total of 150 questionnaires were collected. A Cronbach's α was obtained for domains greater than 0.7, showing a high internal consistency from the questionnaire. Validity was measured by correlating 5 domains with 4 general satisfaction items, documenting an adequate correlation (Rs: 0.41–0.66, p<.05).

Conclusions

The Spanish version of EMPHATIC 30 is a feasible, easy, and suitable tool in this specific environment, based on the results. EMPATHIC 30 is able to measure parental satisfaction, and may serve as a valid indicator to measure quality of care in Spanish PICUs.

Keywords:
Family satisfaction
Paediatric intensive care
Parents
Surveys
Validity
Translation
Cultural adaptation
Resumen
Introducción

Existen pocas encuestas validadas para medir la satisfacción de los padres en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (UCIP) y ninguna de ellas en idioma español. El objetivo de este estudio es traducir el cuestionario EMpowerment of PArents in THe Intensive Care (EMPATHIC), que mide la satisfacción y experiencias de los padres, a la lengua española y validarlo.

Material y métodos

Estudio prospectivo, realizado en la UCIP de un hospital terciario mediante encuestas a los familiares de pacientes ingresados (de entre 0 y 17 años). Los criterios de inclusión fueron una estancia mayor de 24 h y una buena comprensión del idioma de los padres/tutores. Los criterios de exclusión fueron los reingresos y los pacientes fallecidos. Se realizó la traducción del cuestionario mediante un procedimiento estandarizado. Tras la traducción, se hizo un estudio observacional transversal para confirmar su validez y consistencia. La fiabilidad se estimó mediante el α de Cronbach y la validez de contenido mediante el análisis de correlación de Spearman.

Resultados

Se reunieron 150 encuestas. El α de Cronbach por dominios se situó por encima de 0,7, lo que indica una alta consistencia interna del cuestionario. La validez fue medida correlacionando los 5 dominios con los 4 ítems de satisfacción general, lo que demostró una correlación adecuada (rs: 0,41-0,66; p<0,05).

Conclusiones

Basados en estos resultados, la adaptación del EMPHATIC-30 a la cultura e idioma español es un instrumento válido, de fácil cumplimentación y adecuado para el entorno estudiado, capaz de medir la satisfacción de los padres y de servir como guía para mejorar la calidad de la atención en las UCIP españolas.

Palabras clave:
Satisfacción familiar
Cuidados intensivos pediátricos
Padres
Encuestas
Validez
Traducción
Adaptación cultural
Full Text
Introduction

Patient experience, assessed by means of satisfaction questionnaires, is currently considered a quality indicator in the field of “patient-centred care.”1,2 The importance of these questionnaires has been recognised for years as a means to ensure that the experiences and opinions of patients are heard and as useful tools for improving the quality of care.3–5

The concept of patient satisfaction extends to the families of patients,6 especially in young patients, where the approach of “patient-centred care” turns into “family-centred care.”7,8 Family satisfaction is assessed with the purpose of improving the quality and safety of care while promoting communication between families and health care staff. This is even more important in the paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), where the experience of a child's hospitalisation is particularly intense for families. Parental satisfaction with care is at the core of a framework grounded on respect for parental needs, adequate information, parental involvement in decision-making, physical and emotional support and coordination of care.5 Understanding the needs of parents is key to help make their experiences as bearable as possible.

All of the above evinces the need of having an effective tool to assess the perceptions of parents and their satisfaction with the care received by their children in the paediatric intensive care setting.5

Of all the questionnaires currently available to assess parental experience during the stay of children in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), we chose the EMpowerment of PArents in THe Intensive Care (EMPATHIC-30) questionnaire developed by Latour (2013)9 to translate to Spanish and subsequently validate. This is a self-administered feedback form with 3 sections and 5 domains, such as care and treatment, parental participation and professional attitude. It was designed specifically to assess the experience and satisfaction of parents with the care received by their children in paediatric intensive care units (PICU).9

The aim of our study was to translate the original questionnaire (in English) to Spanish and validate the translation for its use as a benchmark of quality care in Spanish PICUs.

Materials and methods

The EMPATHIC-30 is a shortened version of the initial EMPATHIC-6510 questionnaire developed in the Netherlands and validated through the study of 2 cohorts of parents/guardians of children hospitalised in several Dutch PICUs. It is a self-administered feedback form with 3 sections: the first for collection of general information on the patients and their parents, the second to assess parental experience during their child's stay in the PICU, and the third one to assess the overall experience throughout the patient's stay. It consists of 30 items organised into 5 domains: information (5 items), care and treatment (8 items), organisation (5 items), parental participation (6 items) and professional attitude (6 items). Responses are given on a 6-point Likert scale (1=highly disagree; 6=highly agree) with an additional “not applicable” answer option.

We translated the questionnaire following a structured method to ensure reliability. We applied the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process developed by the task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research11 (ISPOR).

The process included the following steps:

  • 1.

    Initial preparation. We asked the author of the original questionnaire for permission and remained in touch with the author throughout the process to set the conceptual basis for the project.

  • 2.

    Translation of the original questionnaire to the target language by 2 independent translators employed in the field of health care and research.

  • 3.

    Reconciliation of the different translation versions by the research team.

  • 4.

    Back translation of the reconciled version into English by 2 translators that were native English speakers.

  • 5.

    Comparison and review of the different versions of the back translation against the original questionnaire, performed by the research team.

  • 6.

    Harmonization of all translations to ensure conceptual equivalence with the original, performed by the research team in consultation with the translators.

  • 7.

    Pilot test: we tested the translated questionnaire by giving it to 10 parents, who were also provided with an addendum for the purpose of recording any doubts that may arise with any of the items in regard to comprehension or wording and to assess how they perceived the questionnaire in general.

  • 8.

    Analysis of the results of the pilot test and completion of translation by the research team.

  • 9.

    Editing of questionnaire.

  • 10.

    Final report of the research team.

After translating the questionnaire following this process, we conducted an observational study. The study universe consisted of the parents or legal guardians of children discharged from the PICU of the Hospital Universitario de Cruces in Vizcaya. The PICU of the Hospital Universitario de Cruces is a medical-surgical 12-bed unit that admits approximately 600 patients per year. We selected patients by non-probability consecutive sampling until we obtained the desired sample size. The target was to obtain 150 individuals, with the calculation made for a 95% confidence interval and an error of 5%. The inclusion criteria were PICU stay longer than 24h and absence of language barriers. We excluded readmissions, parents/guardians that did not understand Spanish well, and parents of deceased children. We informed all the parents of the purpose of the study and requested their verbal consent for participation.

We gave the questionnaire to each family on the day their child was discharged from the unit and placed boxes for collection of completed questionnaires in the PICU and the inpatient wards.

Statistical analysis

We performed the statistical analysis of the data with the software SPSS 23.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc; 2003; Chicago, IL, USA). We assessed the reliability of the translated questionnaire by means of the Cronbach α (with a minimum acceptable value of 0.70) for each item and domain. We assessed internal consistency by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient for the comparison of the 4 items that assessed general satisfaction (items used in every survey in the health care and manufacturing fields) and the 5 domains, considering the internal consistency acceptable if none of the items had a correlation coefficient of less than 0.4 and correlations statistically significant if the p-value was less than 0.05. In the descriptive analysis, we expressed quantitative variables as mean and standard deviation if they were normally distributed, and otherwise as median and interquartile range. We summarised qualitative variables as absolute frequencies and percentages. We defined statistical significance as a p-value of less than 0.05 for all the tests. The statistical analysis was performed by the research team in collaboration with the Unit of Clinical Epidemiology and Methodological Support of the hospital.

We obtained the approval of the Ethics and Research Committee of the Hospital Universitario de Cruces in Vizcaya. Since the data was anonymised, written informed consent was not required.

Results

Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the patients and their parents. Sixty-four percent of questionnaires were completed by mothers, while 34% were completed by fathers. The median patient age was 37 months (interquartile range [IQR], 9–93). The median length of stay was 2 days (IQR, 1–5). We found no differences in the responses based on type of admission (planned/urgent), type of patient (surgical/medical) or the need for mechanical ventilation.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the children and their families.

Characteristics  n (%) 
Person that completed questionnaire
Mother  96 (64) 
Father  51 (34) 
Other  3 (2) 
Family culture
Spanish  132 (96) 
Other  5 (3.7) 
Not recorded  13 (8.6) 
Age in months
Median (IQR)  37 (9–93) 
Length of PICU stay in days
Median (IQR)  2 (1–5) 
Admission
Planned  77 (52) 
Unplanned  71 (48) 
Type of admission
Surgical  77 (52) 
Medical  71 (48) 
Mechanical ventilation
Yes  65 (45) 
No  79 (55) 

IQR, interquartile range.

Appendix A shows the distribution of responses, expressed as absolute frequencies and percentages. Very few respondents picked the “not applicable” answer choice, except for item 13 (“It was easy to reach the PICU by phone”), which was marked as “not applicable” in 35% of completed questionnaires.

The mean score obtained in the 30 items exceeded 5, except for item “control of background noise in the unit,” which was 4.7 (SD, 1.47). We considered scores of more than 5 acceptable.

Table 2 presents the results of the descriptive analysis by item, mean and Cronbach α.

Table 2.

Descriptive analysis by item. Mean and Cronbach α.

  Mean  Standard deviation  Cronbach α if item were removed 
Felt welcome at admission  5.62  0.881  0.918 
Team worked in adherence with hygiene guidelines  5.73  0.640  0.920 
Respect for privacy  5.51  1.169  0.920 
Respect for the patient and the parents  5.70  0.748  0.918 
Paediatricians were empathetic  5.70  0.878  0.918 
Nurses were empathetic  5.63  0.912  0.919 
Consequences of treatment  5.60  0.977  0.918 
Clear information about tests  5.57  0.897  0.918 
Effects of drugs  4.59  1.817  0.922 
Doctors and nurses worked closely together  5.51  0.921  0.917 
Pain prevention and management  5.48  1.084  0.920 
Active participation in decision-making  4.95  1.553  0.921 
Could stay close to the child  4.97  1.553  0.920 
Could stay close to child during invasive procedures  5.20  1.614  0.923 
PICU cleanliness  5.86  0.579  0.920 
Unit easily reached by phone  3.15  2.814  0.939 
Low background noise  4.87  1.279  0.923 
Enough space around child's bed  5.35  1.152  0.921 
Team worked efficiently  5.67  0.689  0.919 
Staff cared about the experience of parents  5.02  1.461  0.918 
Discussed care daily with paediatricians  5.60  0.926  0.919 
Discussed care daily with nurses  5.54  1.000  0.919 
Paediatricians showed concern for the comfort of the child  5.77  0.654  0.919 
Nurses showed concern for the comfort of the child  5.70  0.761  0.919 
Identification of paediatricians in charge  5.25  1.371  0.920 
Identification of nurses in charge  5.20  1.396  0.921 
Confidence in paediatricians  5.76  0.673  0.919 
Confidence in nurses  5.62  0.892  0.920 
Information provided at discharge by paediatricians  5.66  0.795  0.918 
Information provided at discharge by nurses  5.55  0.961  0.919 

The reliability of the domains of questionnaire, estimated by means of the Cronbach α, was fairly homogeneous, with values ranging between 0.72 and 0.89 except for the organisation domain, with a value of 0.56. The highest value, of 0.89, corresponded to the care and treatment domain. The values for the other domains were: parental participation, 0.72; information, 0.8; and professional attitude, 0.83. The Cronbach α for the overall questionnaire, based on standardised items, was 0.95, which is evidence of a high internal consistency.

The internal validity of the questionnaire was assessed by calculating the correlation between the answers for the 5 domains and the 4 overall satisfaction questions, which was acceptable (Table 3).

Table 3.

Correlations between the different domains and the overall satisfaction items.

  Would recommend PICU  Would return to PICU  General perception (doctors)  General perception (nurses) 
Care and treatment  0.565  0.522  0.621  0.668 
Information  0.424  0.411  0.507  0.482 
Organisation  0.531  0.548  0.501  0.582 
Parental participation  0.606  0.591  0.510  0.584 
Professional attitude  0.632  0.639  0.510  0.636 

Significant correlation (p<.05).

The mean scores for the items “I would recommend this PICU to others” and “I would return to this PICU if I needed to” were 5.76 (SD, 0.54) and 5.69 (SD, 0.6), respectively. The scores reflecting the overall satisfaction with the physicians and nurses, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent, were 9.43 (SD, 0.98) and 9.26 (SD, 1.2), respectively.

We did not find statistically significant differences in the scores of any of the domains based on whether admission was planned or urgent, the patient surgical or medical, or the patient needed or did not need mechanical ventilation (Table 4).

Table 4.

Comparative analysis of each domain by key characteristics: type of admission (planned/urgent; surgical/medical) and use of mechanical ventilation (yes/no).

Type of admission  Planned (77)  Unplanned (71)  p 
Care and treatment  5.53 (±0.66)  5.74 (±0.41)  .160 
Information  5.46 (±0.76)  5.67 (±0.46)  .741 
Organisation  5.51 (±0.51)  5.52 (±0.43)  .188 
Parental participation  5.45 (±0.67)  5.59 (±0.46)  .384 
Professional attitude  5.70 (±0.48)  5.77 (±0.39)  .504 
Type of patient  Post-surgical (77)  Not post-surgical (71)  p 
Care and treatment  5.54 (0.67)  5.73 (0.41)  .246 
Information  5.48 (0.74)  5.67 (0.50)  .217 
Organisation  5.46 (0.51)  5.59 (0.43)  .151 
Parental participation  5.45 (0.67)  5.59 (0.45)  .475 
Professional attitude  5.70 (0.49)  5.78 (0.38)  .720 
Use of mechanical ventilation  Yes (77)  No (71)  p 
Care and treatment  5.71 (0.49)  5.56 (0.63)  .197 
Information  5.64 (0.511)  5.50 (0.74)  .437 
Organisation  5.59 (0.46)  5.46 (0.49)  .056 
Parental participation  5.61 (0.49)  5.43 (0.69)  .280 
Professional attitude  5.78 (0.40)  5.69 (0.48)  .232 
Discussion

At present, measures of patient and family satisfaction are considered quality indicators in PICU performance.2,12

Until now, no validated questionnaires in Spanish have been published that assess the satisfaction of parents of children hospitalised in PICUs in Spain. The aim of our study was to translate the English version of the EMPATHIC-30 questionnaire to be used as a tool for assessment of quality of care as perceived by parents.

We chose this questionnaire because it has already been validated and used in several European countries (validated translations of the EMPATHIC-65 version exist in Dutch, English,10 French13 and Italian,14 among other languages). They derive from the original EMPATHIC-65 questionnaire developed by the research team led by Latour.10 The shortened EMPATHIC-30 version allows for quicker completion while retaining the reliability and internal consistency of the original. We translated the questionnaire following the guidelines for translation and validation proposed by the ISPOR,11 which, as explained in the methods section, involved 10 steps. The pilot test was conducted on 10 parents or legal guardians of patients staying in the PICU. All the surveyed parents reported that they found the questionnaire easy to understand, not too long, and appropriate for its intended use. We estimated that the time required for its completion is of approximately 10min. There is evidence in the literature that the length of the questionnaire is not relevant in assessing satisfaction,15 but we considered that as long as reliability was not compromised, shortening the questionnaire had the advantage of making it easier for families to complete it.9

In our study, in contrast with the evaluation of the original questionnaire, where the latter was sent by mail to the parents 2–3 weeks after discharge from the PICU, we gave parents a copy of the questionnaire at the time of discharge. Once completed, parents could drop them in the boxes arranged for that purpose in the PICU and the inpatient wards. We expected that this would increase the response rate. We do not know the exact number of questionnaires that were given out or of responses received, but we estimate that more than 90% of the distributed questionnaires were completed.

Sixty-four percent of questionnaires were completed by mothers and 34% by fathers. We found no differences in the responses between planned and urgent admissions, medical and surgical patients, or patients that received mechanical ventilation and patients that did not. The Italian questionnaire study14 found a higher level of satisfaction in patients whose admission had been planned. The authors believed this could have been due to parents and patients being better informed about admission and hospitalisation procedures.16

Most parents in our study were of Spanish origin, so there was no cultural heterogeneity that may have altered the perception of questionnaire items. In the study of the original questionnaire in Dutch there was significant cultural diversity, with a high proportion of immigrants among the participants. This could pose greater challenges in areas in Spain with larger immigrant populations.

In our study, the mean score was less than 5 for five of the thirty items. The items with the lowest mean scores corresponded to the information regarding treatment (4.59), shared decision-making (4.95), encouragement to stay close to the child (4.97), ease of reaching the PICU by phone (3.15) and the background noise in the unit (4.87). The policy of allowing access to the unit 24h a day was introduced in 2013 and had only been in place for 1 year when the study was conducted.

Scores of less than 5 in these items may have been due to the reasons that follow.

On one hand, health care professionals are not used to having families participate in decision-making. On the other, the initial response of health professionals to allowing the presence of parents 24h a day is usually negative. There is evidence that ICU staff experience distress in the initial stages of unlimited, open access to the unit, as is usually the case with any significant organisational change. However, once the change has been made, most of the staff perceive it in a positive light.17

Another factor at play is the frequent use by physicians when explaining treatments of medical terminology that is not adapted to the comprehension level of parents.

When it comes to the background noise, in addition to the loud voices frequently used by the health care staff, the architecture of the unit played a role in our study, as the ceilings are low and amplify sound.

The item regarding the “phone” was a different matter: the score in this item was associated with parents not needing to use this medium to obtain information about their children. Since parents could stay in the unit 24h a day and were able to use their own phones, they did not need to resort to using the phone line of the unit. Of a total of 132 participants that gave an answer for this item, 52 (34.7%) selected the “not applicable” option, 57 (38%) responded they fully agreed, and 15 (10%) responded that they agreed, so we may conclude that those parents that used this medium to obtain information found it a useful means to be apprised of the condition of their children. Nevertheless, we believe that this was a necessary item to assess parental ease of mind in knowing that they can call at any time to ask about the condition of their children.

The results of reliability tests were in the same range as those of the original studies, with internal consistency values greater than 0.7 except in the organisation domain, where we obtained a Cronbach α of 0.56. This result may be due this domain including the item regarding phone access, which 12% of respondents did not answer and another 35% considered “not applicable,” possibly affecting the overall α value.

The internal consistency of the questionnaire was confirmed by the acceptable correlation of the general satisfaction items and the 5 domains of the questionnaire.

Chief among the limitations of our study is that it was conducted in a single Spanish PICU and in a specific autonomous community, so its results may not be representative of all PICUs in Spain. The next step in the process would be to ask other PICUs to participate in a broader assessment of this questionnaire.

A second important limitation is that the sample under study consisted mainly of Spanish nationals, with a small proportion of immigrants. Last of all, we did not compare these initial results with the results obtained from a second cohort at a different time, as recommended by other authors.18 In the original study by Latour et al., the questionnaire was evaluated in 2 cohorts at different times, which demonstrated the reliability of the questionnaire.

In conclusion, we believe that the translation and cultural adaptation of the EMPHATIC-30 questionnaire for the Spanish population provides a valid and reliable tool to assess the satisfaction of parents with PICU services. This tool can help professionals identify areas for quality improvement in family-centred care. It can also serve as a benchmarking tool19,20 in Spanish PICUs.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

We thank our hospitalised patients and their families.

Appendix A

Item  Not applicable  No answer 
2 (1.3)    1 (0.7)  7 (4.7)  19 (12.7)  118 (78.7)    3 (2) 
2 (1.3)  1 (0.7)  3 (2)  4 (2.7)  19 (12.7)  117 (78)  1 (0.7)  3 (2) 
1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  4 (2.7)  7 (4.7)  26 (17.3)  111 (74)     
3 (2)  4 (2.7)  8 (5.3)  22 (14.7)  24 (16)  71 (47)  14 (9)  4 (2.7) 
1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  5 (3)  6 (4)  27 (18)  108 (72)    2 (1.3) 
1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  2 (1.3)  3 (2)  37 (25)  102 (68)  2 (1.3)  2 (1.3) 
3 (2)  2 (1.3)  5 (3.3)  17 (11.3)  32 (21)  81 (54)  5 (3.3)  5 (3.3) 
2 (1.3)  2 (1.3)  11 (7)  12 (8)  24 (16)  90 (60)  5 (3.3)  4 (2.7) 
2 (1.3)    3 (2)  7 (4.7)  21 (14)  103 (68.7)  11 (7.3)  3 (2) 
10  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  26 (17)  118 (78.8)    2 (1.3) 
11  1 (0.7)    1 (0.7)  4 (2.7)  27 (18)  108 (72)  4 (2.7)  5 (3.3) 
12  1 (0.7)      1 (0.7)  10 (6.7)  138 (92)     
13  2 (1.3)    1 (0.7)  5 (3.3)  15 (10)  57 (38)  52 (35)  18 (12) 
14  3 (2)  6 (4)  10 (7)  21 (14)  37 (25)  72 (48)    1 (0.7) 
15  3 (2)  3 (2)  7 (4.7)  8 (5.3)  29 (19)  100 (67)     
16  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)    4 (2.7)  30 (20)  113 (75)    1 (0.7) 
17  1 (0.7)    3 (2)  2 (1.3)  22 (15)  121 (81)    1 (0.7) 
18  3 (2)  2 (1.3)  6 (4)  13 (8.7)  36 (24)  80 (53.3)  5 (3.3)  5 (3.3) 
19  1 (0.7)    2 (1.3)  7 (4.7)  23 (15.3)  112 (75)  2 (1.3)  3 (2) 
20  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  8 (5.3)  23 (15.3)  107 (71.3)  2 (2.3)  7 (4.7) 
21  2 (1.3)      5 (3.3)  18 (12)  120 (80)    5 (3.3) 
22  1 (0.7)    2 (1.3)  5 (3.3)  18 (12)  118 (79)    6 (4) 
23  3 (2)  2 (1.3)  4 (2.7)  12 (8)  21 (14)  100 (67)  4 (2.7)  4 (2.7) 
24  3 (2)  1 (0.7)  5 (3.3)  14 (9.3)  21 (14)  96 (64)  4 (2.7)  6 (4) 
25  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)    4 (2.7)  17 (11)  124 (83)    3 (2) 
26  2 (1.3)  1 (0.7)    7 (4.7)  21 (14)  114 (76)    5 (3.3) 
27  2 (1.3)  1 (0.7)    5 (3.3)  15 (10)  122 (81)  1 (0.7)  4 (2.7) 
28  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  1 (0.7)  6 (4)  21 (14)  114 (76)  1 (0.7)  5 (3.3) 
29  1 (0.7)    2 (1.3)  9 (6)  15 (10)  115 (77)    8 (5.3) 
30  1 (0.7)    1 (0.7)  7 (4.7)  24 (16)  100 (66.7)  2 (1.3)  15 (10) 

Answer distribution. Absolute frequencies and percentages: n (%).

References
[1]
American Academy of Pediatrics Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management and Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine
Principles for the development and use of quality measures
Pediatrics, 121 (2008), pp. 411-418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3281
[2]
H. Flaatten
The present use of quality indicators in the intensive care unit
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 56 (2012), pp. 1078-1083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2012.02656.x
[3]
P.G. Eulmesekian,V. Peuchot,A. Pérez Arch
Satisfacción de los padres de los pacientes en una unidad de cuidados intensivos pediátricos
Arch Argent Pediatr, 110 (2012), pp. 113-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.5546/aap.2012.113
[4]
J.J. Fenton,A.F. Jerant,K.D. Bertakis,P. Franks
The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality
Arch Intern Med, 172 (2012), pp. 405-411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1662
[5]
J.M. Latour,J. van Goudoever,J. Hazelzet
Parent satisfaction in the pediatric ICU
Pediatr Clin N Am, 55 (2008), pp. 779-790
[6]
E. Azoulay,F. Pochard,S. Chevret,F. Lemaire,P. Hubert,P. Canoui
Meeting the needs of intensive care unit patient families: a multicenter study
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 16 (2001), pp. 135-139
[7]
T.W. October,P.S. Hinds,J. Wang,Z.B. Dizon,Y.I. Cheng,D.L. Roter
Parent satisfaction with communication is associated with physician's patient-centered communication patterns during family conferences
Pediatr Crit Care Med, 17 (2016), pp. 490-497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000000719
[8]
Institute for Patient- and Family-centered Care. Available at: http://www.ipfcc.org/about/index.html [accessed 25.09.16].
[9]
J.M. Latour,H.J. Duivenvoorden,D. Tibboel,J.A. Hazelzet,The EMPATHIC Study Group
The shortened EMpowerment of PArents in THe Intensive Care 30 questionnaire adequately measured parent satisfaction in pediatric intensive care units
J Clin Epidemiol, 66 (2013), pp. 1045-1050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.010
[10]
J.M. Latour,J.B. van Goudoever,H.J. Duivenvoorden,M.J. Albers,N.A. van Dam,E. Dullaart
Construction and psychometric testing of the EMPATHIC questionnaire measuring parent satisfaction in the pediatric intensive care unit
Intensive Care Med, 37 (2011), pp. 310-318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-2042-y
[11]
D. Wild,A. Grove,M. Martin,S. Eremenco,S. McElroy,Verjee-Lorenz
ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for translation and cultural adaptation
[12]
P.J. Pronovost,S.M. Berenholtz,K. Ngo,M. McDowell,C. Holzmueller,C. Haraden
Developing and pilot testing quality indicators in the intensive care unit
J Crit Care, 18 (2003), pp. 145-155
[13]
C. Grandjean,J.M. Latour,J. Cotting,M.C. Fazan,S. Leteurtre,A.S. Ramelet
Measurement of parent satisfaction in the paediatric intensive care unit. Translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric equivalence for the French-speaking version of the EMPATHIC-65 questionnaire
Intensive Crit Care Nurs, 38 (2017), pp. 40-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2016.09.001
[14]
A. Wolfler,A. Giannini,M. Finistrella,I. Salvo,E. Calderini,G. Frasson
EMpowerment of PArents in THe Intensive Care Questionnaire: translation and validation in Italian PICUs
Pediatr Crit Care Med, 18 (2017), pp. e77-e85 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000001031
[15]
C. Jenkinson,A. Coulter,R. Reeves,S. Bruster,N. Richards
Properties of the Picker Patient Experience questionnaire in a randomized controlled trial of long versus short form survey instruments
J Public Health Med, 25 (2003), pp. 197-201
[16]
M. Astuto,G. Rosano,G. Rizzo,N. Disma,L. Raciti,O. Sciuto
Preoperative parental information and parents’ presence at induction of anaesthesia
Minerva Anestesiol, 72 (2006), pp. 461-465
[17]
A. Giannini,G. Miccinesi,E. Prandi,C. Buzzoni,C. Borreani,The ODIN Study Group
Partial liberalization of visiting policies and ICU staff: a before-and-after study
Intensive Care Med, 39 (2013), pp. 2180-2187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3087-5
[18]
J. Coste,F. Guillemin,J. Pouchot,J. Fermanian
Methodological approaches to shortening composite measurement scales
J Clin Epidemiol, 50 (1997), pp. 247-252
[19]
W.G. Lehrman,M.N. Elliott,E. Goldstein,M.K. Beckett,D.J. Klein,L.A. Giordano
Characteristics of hospitals demonstrating superior performance in patient experience and clinical process measures of care
Med Care Res Rev, 67 (2010), pp. 38-55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558709341323
[20]
F. Greaves,U.J. Pape,D. King,A. Darzi,A. Majeed,R.M. Wachter
Associations between internet-based patient ratings and conventional surveys of patient experience in the English NHS: an observational study
BMJ Qual Saf, 7 (2012), pp. 600-605

Please cite this article as: Pilar Orive FJ, Basabe Lozano J, López Zuñiga A, López Fernández YM, Escudero Argaluza J, Latour JM. Traducción y validación al español del cuestionario EMPATHIC-30 para medir la satisfacción de los padres en cuidados intensivos. An Pediatr (Barc).2018;89:50–57.

Previous presentations: This study was presented as an oral communication under the title Traducción, validación al español del cuestionario EMPHATIC-30 para medir la satisfacción de los padres en la unidad de cuidados intensivos de pediatría at the XXXII Congress of the Sociedad de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos; May 4-6, 2017; Granada, Spain.

Copyright © 2017. Asociación Española de Pediatría
Idiomas
Anales de Pediatría (English Edition)

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?