Cross-cultural validation of ImpRes-Tool-BR: a tool for project development and implementation research

Treichel, Carlos Alberto dos Santos; Chavez, Leidy Janeth Erazo; Sevdalis, Nikolaos; Bakolis, Ioannis; Hull, Louise Mary; Campos, Rosana Teresa Onocko

doi:10.1590/2358-289820241418550I

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Saúde debate 48 (141) • Apr-Jun 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2358-289820241418550I copy

Cross-cultural validation of ImpRes-Tool-BR: a tool for project development and implementation research

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This study aims to present the results of the translation, cross-cultural validation and preliminary evaluation of a tool, originally developed in the United Kingdom, to guide Brazilian researchers in the elaboration of projects and rigorous and high-quality implementation research: ImpRes-BR. Following currently established good practices for cross-cultural validation of instruments and scales, the tool, together with its user guide, was translated and back-translated, subjected to a pilot test with 20 health professionals and evaluated by a panel of 10 specialists who assigned the values used for the calculations of the Content Validity Index at the item level (CVI-I) and scale (CVI-E). In this process, in addition to conceptual validity indices greater than 90%, an IVC-I of at least 0.90 was observed in all domains of the tool and its guide, and an IVC-E of 0.98. Having established the validity of the tool and its guide, it was applied in 14 research projects in the planning or execution phase and was recognized as a powerful instrument for self-analysis of the teams in the qualification of their projects and strengthening them in relation to the principles of the Implementation Science.

KEYWORDS
Implementation Science; Validation study; Methods

	Round 1		Round 2
	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	7	35%	5	25%
Female	13	65%	15	75%
Age
Up to 30 years	7	35%	6	30%
Up to 30 years	8	40%	10	50%
41 years or more	5	25%	4	20%
Education
Master - on going	7	35%	10	50%
Master - complete	1	5%	1	5%
Doctorate - on going	9	45%	7	35%
Doctorate - complete	3	15%	2	10%
Profession
Physician	4	20%	3	15%
Nurse	1	5%	1	5%
Psychologist	9	45%	11	55%
Occupational Therapist	6	30%	4	20%
Nutritionist	0	0%	1	5%
Previous completion of courses on implementation research
No	16	80%	17	85%
Yes	4	20%	3	15%
Prior participation in implementation research
No	5	25%	6	30%
Yes	15	75%	14	70%

	Conceptual Equivalence			Content Equivalence			CVI-I
	Clear	Unclear	Not relevant	Not very relevant	Relevant, but needs small changes	Very relevant and succinct
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Domain 1	9 (90%)	1 (10%)	0 (0%)	1 (10%)	4 (40%)	5 (50%)	0.90
Domain 2	9 (90%)	1 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (50%)	5 (50%)	1.00
Domain 3	10 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (30%)	7 (70%)	1.00
Domain 4	10 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (30%)	7 (70%)	1.00
Domain 5	9 (90%)	1 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (30%)	7 (70%)	1.00
Domain 6	10 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (40%)	6 (60%)	1.00
Domain 7	9 (90%)	1 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (20%)	8 (80%)	1.00
Domain 8	10 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (10%)	9 (90%)	1.00
Domain 9	9 (90%)	1 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (40%)	6 (60%)	1.00
Domain 10	9 (90%)	1 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (40%)	6 (60%)	1.00
CVI-E/Med							0.98

	n	%
Gender
Male	2	14,3
Female	12	85,7
Age
up to 30 years	2	14,3
up to 40 years	6	42,9
41 years or more	6	42,9
Education
Specialization – complete	3	21,4
Master – on going	3	21,4
Master – complete	2	14,3
Doctorate – on going	2	14,3
Doctorate – complete	4	28,6
Profession
Physician	4	28,6
Nurse	7	50
Psychologist	2	14,3
Physiotherapist	1	7,1
Previous completion of courses on implementation research
No	3	24,4
Yes	11	78,6
Prior participation in implementation research
No	7	50
Yes	7	50
Project concentration area
Maternal-Infant	5	35,7
Medical-Surgical	1	7,1
Community Mental Health	3	21,4
Oncology	1	7,1
Pediatrics	1	7,1
Women’s Health	3	21,4
Project stage
Execution	5	35,7
Planning	9	64,3
Type of implementation research
Pure	7	50
Hybrid type 1	1	7,1
Hybrid type 2	5	35,7
Hybrid type 3	1	7,1

Median (IRQ)
Structure and content
The ImpRes-BR tool is easy to understand	4 (4-4)
Completing the ImpRes-BR tool is time-consuming	4 (3-4)
The ImpRes-BR tool is too long	4 (3-4)
The order of ImpRes-BR questions is logical	4 (4-5)
The ImpRes-BR tool covers the main components that must be considered when designing or conducting an Implementation Project	4 (4-5)
Utility
The ImpRes-BR tool is useful for self-analysis of the team involved in the project regarding the elements of implementation research	4,5 (4-5)
The ImpRes-BR tool is useful for identifying project areas where Implementation Science elements are missing	4 (4-5)
ImpRes-BR is a useful tool to strengthen projects in relation to Implementation Science	5(4-5)
Giving feedback to research teams on their projects based on the ImpRes-BR tool would be useful to improve the quality of implementation research	5(4-5)
ImpRes-BR is a useful tool for evaluating the quality of implementation research	4 (4-4)

Centro Brasileiro de Estudos de Saúde Av. Brasil, 4036, sala 802, 21040-361 Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brasil, Tel. 55 21-3882-9140, Fax.55 21-2260-3782 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: revista@saudeemdebate.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Conflict of interests: non-existent