Evaluation of the clinical protocol quality for family planning services of people living with HIV/AIDS

Brasil, Raquel Ferreira Gomes; Silva, Maria Josefina da; Moura, Escolástica Rejane Ferreira

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. esc. enferm. USP 52 • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-220X2017008103335 copy

Evaluation of the clinical protocol quality for family planning services of people living with HIV/AIDS^* * Extracted from the dissertation: “Desenvolvimento de protocolo clínico para o planejamento familiar de pessoas vivendo com HIV/aids”, Universidade Federal do Ceará, 2016.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To evaluate the quality of a clinical protocol for family planning care for people living with HIV/AIDS.

Method:

An evaluative study based on the six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II and on Pearson's Coefficient of Variation.

Results:

The protocol reached between 88.8% and 100.0% quality in the domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II and 93.3% in the overall evaluation. The obtained Pearson's coefficient of variation was between zero and 18.6. Considering that a minimum percentage of 70.0% was adopted for the quality attributed by the evaluators, quality has been achieved for all domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II. As a coefficient for all domains was less than 25%, we can infer that the scores attributed by the evaluators were linear or homogeneous, meaning high agreement between them.

Conclusion:

The protocol was evaluated as a quality instrument, recommended for use by health professionals who deal with family planning for people living with HIV/AIDS.

DESCRIPTORS
Protocols; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Family Planning; HIV Seropositivity; Public Health Nursing

^* * Domain items that make up the study(8), cited by the authors. Domain 1 − Scope and purpose	Evaluators’ Score
	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5	Total
1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described.	6	7	7	7	7	34
2. The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described.	7	6	7	7	7	34
3. The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described.	7	7	7	7	6	34
Total	20	20	21	21	20	102
^* * Domain items that make up the study(8), cited by the authors. Domain 2 − Stakeholder involvement
4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups.	7	6	7	6	4	30
5. The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought.	7	7	7	7	4	32
6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined.	7	7	6	7	6	33
Total	21	20	20	20	14	95

^* * Domain items that make up the study(8), cited by the authors. Domain 3 – Rigour of development	Evaluators’ Score
	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5	Total
7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence.	7	7	7	7	7	35
8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described.	7	7	7	7	7	35
9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described.	7	7	7	7	7	35
10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.	7	7	6	7	3	30
11. The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations.	6	5	7	7	7	32
12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence.	6	7	7	7	7	34
13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.	7	7	7	7	7	35
14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.	7	7	7	7	7	35
Total	54	54	55	56	52	271
^* * Domain items that make up the study(8), cited by the authors. Domain 4 – Clarity of the presentation
15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous.	6	6	7	7	7	33
16. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented.	6	7	7	7	7	34
17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable.	7	6	7	7	7
Total	19	19	21	21	21

^* * Domain items that make up the study(8), cited by the authors. Domain 5 – Applicability	Evaluators’ Score
	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5	Total
18. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application.	7	6	6	7	7	33
19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice.	7	7	7	7	7	35
20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered.	2	7	7	7	6	29
21. The guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria.	2	7	7	7	7	30
Total	18	27	27	28	27	127
^* * Domain items that make up the study(8), cited by the authors. Domain 6 – Editorial independence
22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline.	7	7	7	7	7	35
23. Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed.	7	7	7	7	7	35
Total	14	14	14	14	14	70

Domain	Evaluators’ suggestions
Domain 1	Changes in the second objective of the protocol (E1) and defining of the age group to be attended (E5). E2 did not present any recommendations despite assigning a score below 7 on an item.
Domain 2	E2 and E5 suggested adding the highest qualifications of the professionals participating in its development to the PAPHA. E3 brought up the need to specify to which healthcare professionals the protocol is intended. E4 did not present any recommendations despite assigning a score below 7 on an item.
Domain 3	E5 inquired to what content each participant contributed in the development of the protocol and how the PAPHA contributions were inserted. E1, E2 and E3 did not present any recommendations despite assigning a score below 7 on an item.
Domain 4	E2 suggested the inclusion of a text addressing vaccination of seropositive pregnant women. E1 did not present any recommendations despite assigning a score below 7 on an item.
Domain 5	E5 suggested adding a list of the health services that provide care for people living with HIV/AIDS. E2 and E3 did not present any recommendations despite assigning a score below 7 on an item.
Domain 6	No suggestions.

Domain	S	$\bar{χ}$	PCV (%)
Scope and purpose	0.54	20.4	2.6
Stakeholder involvement	3.2	17.6	18.6
Rigour of development	1.4	54.2	2.7
Clarity of the presentation	1.09	20.2	5.4
Applicability	4.1	25.4	16.3
Editorial independence	0.0	14	0.0

Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Enfermagem Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419 , 05403-000 São Paulo - SP/ Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 11) 3061-7553, - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: reeusp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: Raquel Ferreira Gomes Brasil Rua General Piragibe, 242, Apto. 1705, Bloco C, Parquelândia CEP 60450-255 – Fortaleza, CE, Brazil rafegobr@yahoo.com.br

Brasil

Brasil

Evaluation of the clinical protocol quality for family planning services of people living with HIV/AIDS* * Extracted from the dissertation: “Desenvolvimento de protocolo clínico para o planejamento familiar de pessoas vivendo com HIV/aids”, Universidade Federal do Ceará, 2016.

ABSTRACT

Objective:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Evaluation of the clinical protocol quality for family planning services of people living with HIV/AIDS^* * Extracted from the dissertation: “Desenvolvimento de protocolo clínico para o planejamento familiar de pessoas vivendo com HIV/aids”, Universidade Federal do Ceará, 2016.