BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)–English is a valid and reliable instrument for disability measurement in low back pain (LBP) patients. There is no existing ODI–Ilokano that evaluates LBP patients. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the ODI–English into Ilokano.

The ODI–English was cross-culturally adapted into Ilokano through a process that included forward translation, synthesis of the translations, back translation, expert committee review, and testing of the pre-final version.

Forward translation focused on capturing the essence of terms related to pain intensity, personal care, and daily activities, achieving consensus on phrases that accurately mirrored the original English meanings. Subsequent synthesis refined these translations, emphasizing idiomatic and conceptual equivalence over literal interpretations, particularly in nuanced areas like sleep disturbance and social life activities. Backward translation processes aligned Ilokano and English terms, especially for pain intensity and personal care, ensuring consistency across languages. The expert committee review addressed spelling, word choice, and sentence structure, making strategic adjustments for cultural relevance. Pilot testing with participants from Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur, Philippines highlighted comprehension challenges with specific terms, leading to adaptations like replacing 'milya' and 'yarda' with metric units and retaining culturally sensitive terms with supplementary English explanations.

This study refined the ODI–English into a culturally adapted Ilokano version, focusing on semantic, idiomatic, and cultural equivalence. Incorporating pilot testing feedback, such as modifying measurement units and addressing sensitive terms, highlighted the thorough adaptation process. The collaborative translation efforts and diverse patient input ensured a culturally resonant ODI version for Ilokano speakers. This adaptation enhances physical therapy practices by improving patient assessments and advocates for adapting patient-reported outcomes to diverse cultures, advancing patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. The sudden transition to blended teaching and learning (BTL) poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health science programs that require hands-on practical experience. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these self-report questionnaires (SRQs) should be established to ensure the accuracy of the results as intended by the SRQ.

This study critically appraised, compared, and summarized the psychometric properties of SRQ evaluating BTL among health science university students. This review determined the SRQ’s reliability, internal consistency, various forms of validity (content, criterion, construct), and responsiveness.

Following a 10-step procedure based on COSMIN guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of SRQs used by health science university students to evaluate blended teaching and learning. Studies were eligible if they reported psychometric properties of SRQs related to blended learning among university health science students; exclusions included studies focusing on perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, as well as articles such as biographies, editorials, and conference materials. Searches covered multiple electronic databases until April 26, 2023, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST, ERIC, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Acta Medica Philippina, Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development, and HERDIN, managed through Zotero. Two independent reviewers performed database searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text evaluations, with a third reviewer resolving any disputes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist was employed to evaluate included studies on the development and various measurement properties of SRQs. The reviewers assessed SRQ standards, including validity, reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability, and feasibility. Data extraction and result tabulation were independently completed, with content comparison by two health education experts. This evaluation categorized the SRQs into three quality and validity levels.

The study examined five articles; four were rated as 'doubtful' and one as 'inadequate' in the overall development of SRQ. All four 'doubtful' studies demonstrated questionable content validity when university students were asked about the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Only half of these studies achieved an 'adequate' rating for content validity based on expert opinions on relevance and comprehensiveness. All but one study scored from 'very good' to 'adequate' in structural validity. Three out of the four studies scored a very good rating for internal consistency, while one was deemed 'inadequate' in internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, and reliability. Three out of four studies scored 'very good' on construct validity, but all overlooked criterion validity and responsiveness. Conducted in various locations, including Australia, Romania, Turkey, and Taiwan, these studies highlighted both common characteristics and limitations in questionnaire development according to the COSMIN guidelines. Four studies were deemed reliable and valid for BTL constructs (Category A); Wu et al. requires further validation (Category B). Study limitations included heterogeneity in populations, settings, and questionnaire versions, potential subjective bias in SRQ content comparison, and the evolving nature of SRQs in blended learning contexts.

The systematic review reports the development and evaluation of SRQs for BTL while identifying gaps in their applicability to health science programs. The Blended Learning Scale (BLS) of Lazar et al. and the Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) of Ballouk et al. showed an ‘adequate' rating for content validity. BLS revealed very good structural validity, internal consistency, and adequate content validation. Although the BLQ lacked Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it yielded valuable constructs for evaluating health sciences students' experiences in BTL. Both tools require improvements on recall period, completion time, interpretability, and feasibility. The review underscores the necessity for cont inuous assessment and enhancement of such instruments in BTL, advocating a rigorous scale development process. Furthermore, it encourages the customization of teaching and learning evaluation tools to suit specific institutional contexts while promoting further validation of these questionnaires across different populations in future research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Morbidity and mortality conferences (M&M) have been an important part of the hospital governance since the early 1900s. It has been shown to improve overall quality of care, minimize adverse occurrences and preventable fatalities, and provide chances for educational learning. However, medical trainees have different perceptions of M&M conferences which may affect its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine the perception of surgical trainees towards M&M conferences.

The study is a questionnaire-based survey among surgical trainees of the Department of Surgery, Philippine General Hospital (PGH), for the training year of 2023. The survey consisted of 24 questions on their perception regarding the conduct of M&M. A Likert scale was used by the respondents to rate their perceptions (1 – negative, 10 – positive). Descriptive analysis and ANOVA were used to summarize the responses to the survey.

A total of 64 surgical trainees from the Department of Surgery responded to the survey (response rate = 71.9%). Most respondents (68.8%) reported that the ideal frequency of M&M conferences is once a month. 78.1% were not aware of the inclusion criteria of the cases discussed in the departmental M&M conferences. Most reported (64.1%) that M&M conferences did not regularly include data on outpatient events. A mean rating of 5.2 was observed among surgical trainees on how judgmental they feel about the environment of M&M conferences. Surgical trainees were willing to talk openly about their complications (mean rating 7.1). They were fearful of criticism (mean rating 4.4) and the negative repercussions of their presentations (mean rating 4.1) during M&M conferences. The respondents perceive M&M conferences to be conducive for learning and service improvement with both having a mean rating of 7.8. Most felt that M&M conferences focused on the individual performance (mean rating 7.3) while participants were divided regarding the focus on systems and processes (mean rating of 5.6). In terms of dissemination, about half (45.3%) mentioned that they did not know how the discussions/outcomes were disseminated following an M&M conference. The mean rating of willingness to talk openly of complications were significantly higher among senior residents (7.7) compared to junior residents (6.3) (p=0.008).

This study observed variability in the perceptions of surgical trainees on M&M conferences. Surgical trainees tend to feel fear of criticism and negative repercussions during M&M conferences. There are opportunities for improving the format of M&M in terms of clarity of inclusion criteria and dissemination, and focusing on systems and processes rather than individual faults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Although nutritional assessment tools have been available internationally, local data for their use in foreseeing adverse outcomes among admitted patients are currently unavailable. The primary objective of this study was to determine the association of nutritional status using Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ) and malnutrition risk using the MST (Malnutrition Screening Tool) with ICU admission and in-hospital mortality.

This was a prospective-cohort study which included 122 purposively-selected adult participants who were non-intubated, admitted for medical and surgical managements, stayed for at least 24 hours, had no COVID-19 infection, and were not admitted in any critical care unit. The SNAQ and MST questionnaires, which are validated tools and consists of  two to three easy-to-answer questions, were used among the participants and their scores were tallied in order to get their nutritional status and malnutrition risk. Primary endpoints measured were length of hospital stay, incidence of mortality, and ICU admission rate. Comorbidities were taken into account using the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Categorizing the SNAQ scores showed 33.61% were severely malnourished which was similar when using the MST classification, wherein 34.43% were at risk of malnutrition. None of the participants were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Malnutrition risk and nutritional status was not significantly associated with 30-day in-hospital mortality (p >0.05). On the other hand, results of the Cox proportional hazards showed that SNAQ and MST significantly predicted the hazard of 30-day in-hospital mortality, increasing the hazard of mortality by 2.58 times and 3.67 times, respectively, for every 1-unit increase in SNAQ and MST scores. Similarly, nutritional status using the SNAQ classification indicated the severely malnourished category significantly predicted the hazard of mortality, increasing it by 9.22 times for those who are severely malnourished. Also, malnutrition risk using the MST classification indicated that those who were at risk of malnutrition were 9.80 times at greater hazard of mortality than those who were not at risk of malnutrition.

The MST and SNAQ classification are screening tools for nutritional status (SNAQ) and malnutrition risk (MST) that can be administered at the onset of the patient’s hospital course and have been demonstrated in this study to predict 30-day in-hospital mortality. It is important to note that none of the patients included in this study required intensive care unit admission.

Human ; Infant, Newborn ; Mass Screening ; Neonatal Screening ; Censuses

Infant, Newborn ; Mass Screening ; Neonatal Screening

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. The sudden transition to blended teaching and learning (BTL) poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health science programs that require hands-on practical experience. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these self-report questionnaires (SRQs) should be established to ensure the accuracy of the results as intended by the SRQ.

This study critically appraised, compared, and summarized the psychometric properties of SRQ evaluating BTL among health science university students. This review determined the SRQ’s reliability, internal consistency, various forms of validity (content, criterion, construct), and responsiveness.

Following a 10-step procedure based on COSMIN guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of SRQs used by health science university students to evaluate blended teaching and learning. Studies were eligible if they reported psychometric properties of SRQs related to blended learning among university health science students; exclusions included studies focusing on perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, as well as articles such as biographies, editorials, and conference materials. Searches covered multiple electronic databases until April 26, 2023, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST, ERIC, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Acta Medica Philippina, Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development, and HERDIN, managed through Zotero. Two independent reviewers performed database searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text evaluations, with a third reviewer resolving any disputes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist was employed to evaluate included studies on the development and various measurement properties of SRQs. The reviewers assessed SRQ standards, including validity, reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability, and feasibility. Data extraction and result tabulation were independently completed, with content comparison by two health education experts. This evaluation categorized the SRQs into three quality and validity levels.

The study examined five articles; four were rated as 'doubtful' and one as 'inadequate' in the overall development of SRQ. All four 'doubtful' studies demonstrated questionable content validity when university students were asked about the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Only half of these studies achieved an 'adequate' rating for content validity based on expert opinions on relevance and comprehensiveness. All but one study scored from 'very good' to 'adequate' in structural validity. Three out of the four studies scored a very good rating for internal consistency, while one was deemed 'inadequate' in internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, and reliability. Three out of four studies scored 'very good' on construct validity, but all overlooked criterion validity and responsiveness. Conducted in various locations, including Australia, Romania, Turkey, and Taiwan, these studies highlighted both common characteristics and limitations in questionnaire development according to the COSMIN guidelines. Four studies were deemed reliable and valid for BTL constructs (Category A); Wu et al. requires further validation (Category B). Study limitations included heterogeneity in populations, settings, and questionnaire versions, potential subjective bias in SRQ content comparison, and the evolving nature of SRQs in blended learning contexts.

The systematic review reports the development and evaluation of SRQs for BTL while identifying gaps in their applicability to health science programs. The Blended Learning Scale (BLS) of Lazar et al. and the Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) of Ballouk et al. showed an ‘adequate' rating for content validity. BLS revealed very good structural validity, internal consistency, and adequate content validation. Although the BLQ lacked Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it yielded valuable constructs for evaluating health sciences students' experiences in BTL. Both tools require improvements on recall period, completion time, interpretability, and feasibility. The review underscores the necessity for cont inuous assessment and enhancement of such instruments in BTL, advocating a rigorous scale development process. Furthermore, it encourages the customization of teaching and learning evaluation tools to suit specific institutional contexts while promoting further validation of these questionnaires across different populations in future research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)–English is a valid and reliable instrument for disability measurement in low back pain (LBP) patients. There is no existing ODI–Ilokano that evaluates LBP patients. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the ODI–English into Ilokano.

The ODI–English was cross-culturally adapted into Ilokano through a process that included forward translation, synthesis of the translations, back translation, expert committee review, and testing of the pre-final version.

Forward translation focused on capturing the essence of terms related to pain intensity, personal care, and daily activities, achieving consensus on phrases that accurately mirrored the original English meanings. Subsequent synthesis refined these translations, emphasizing idiomatic and conceptual equivalence over literal interpretations, particularly in nuanced areas like sleep disturbance and social life activities. Backward translation processes aligned Ilokano and English terms, especially for pain intensity and personal care, ensuring consistency across languages. The expert committee review addressed spelling, word choice, and sentence structure, making strategic adjustments for cultural relevance. Pilot testing with participants from Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur, Philippines highlighted comprehension challenges with specific terms, leading to adaptations like replacing 'milya' and 'yarda' with metric units and retaining culturally sensitive terms with supplementary English explanations.

This study refined the ODI–English into a culturally adapted Ilokano version, focusing on semantic, idiomatic, and cultural equivalence. Incorporating pilot testing feedback, such as modifying measurement units and addressing sensitive terms, highlighted the thorough adaptation process. The collaborative translation efforts and diverse patient input ensured a culturally resonant ODI version for Ilokano speakers. This adaptation enhances physical therapy practices by improving patient assessments and advocates for adapting patient-reported outcomes to diverse cultures, advancing patient-centered care.

Human ; Mass Screening ; Mothers ; Nuchal Translucency Measurement ; Prenatal Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION: Medical errors commonly occur in medical imaging departments. These errors are frequently influenced by patient safety culture. This study aimed to develop a suitable patient safety culture assessment tool for medical imaging departments. METHODS: Staff members of a teaching hospital medical imaging department were invited to complete the generic short version of the Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ). Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine model fit. A cut-off of 60% was used to define the percentage positive responses (PPR). PPR values were compared between occupational groups. RESULTS: A total of 300 complete responses were received and the response rate was 75.4%. In reliability analysis, the Cronbach's α for the original 32-item SAQ was 0.941. Six subscales did not demonstrate good fit with CFA. A modified five-subscale, 22-item model (SAQ-MI) showed better fit (goodness-to-fit index ≥0.9, comparative fit index ≥ 0.9, Tucker-Lewis index ≥0.9 and root mean square error of approximation ≤0.08). The Cronbach's α for the 22 items was 0.921. The final five subscales were safety and teamwork climate, job satisfaction, stress recognition, perception of management and working condition, with PPR of 62%, 68%, 57%, 61% and 60%, respectively. Statistically significant differences in PPR were observed between radiographers, doctors and others occupational groups. CONCLUSION The modified five-factor, 22-item SAQ-MI is a suitable tool for the evaluation of patient safety culture in a medical imaging department. Differences in patient safety culture exist between occupation groups, which will inform future intervention studies.
Humans ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Patient Safety ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Diagnostic Imaging ; Reproducibility of Results ; Male ; Female ; Adult ; Job Satisfaction ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Middle Aged ; Hospitals, Teaching ; Safety Management ; Organizational Culture ; Medical Errors/prevention & control*