RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant psychological impact worldwide. The COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI) is widely used to assess psychological stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although CPDI has been validated in Peru and Spain, no cross-cultural validation studies have been conducted. As an exploratory aim, differences in CPDI factorial scores between the most prevalent medical conditions in the two samples (arterial hypertension, respiratory diseases and anxious-depressive disorders) from a general population of Peru and Spain were investigated. We conducted secondary data analysis with data from Peru and Spain to validate the CPDI in a cross-cultural context. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) were performed to evaluate the factor structure and measurement invariance of the CPDI across cultural contexts. Concerning the exploratory analysis, we performed a U-Mann-Whitney test to evaluate differences in the factorial scores in the two samples. This study revealed a two-factor solution (stress and rumination/information) for the CPDI that included 21 of the 24 original items, and consistent with previous studies. The MGCFA demonstrated measurement invariance across cultural contexts (scalar invariance), indicating that the CPDI construct has the same meaning across both groups, regardless of cultural context and language variations of Spanish. Patients with anxious-depressive disorders showed higher CPDI factorial scores for both factors, whereas patients with respiratory diseases were only associated with the stress factor. This study provides evidence for the cross-cultural validity of the CPDI, highlighting its utility as a reliable instrument for assessing psychological stress in the context of COVID-19 across different cultures. These findings have important implications for developing and validating measures to assess psychological distress in different cultural contexts.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Psicometría , Perú/epidemiología , Comparación Transcultural , PandemiasRESUMEN
Introducción. La monitorización de la utilización del conocimiento y la evaluación de resultados permiten conocer la aplicación de la evidencia, cambios en los conocimientos y actitudes, el impacto en resultados de salud y la integración y el mantenimiento de las prácticas adoptadas. Existen debilidades relacionadas con la falta de sistematización, limitaciones de los registros y calidad del proceso. El objetivo de este artículo es describir la experiencia en la generación de estrategias de monitorización y evaluación de resultados de implantación de Guías de Buenas Prácticas en España. División de temas tratados. En primer lugar, se revisan los procesos de medición de resultados en la implantación de Guías, en el marco del Programa Best Practice Spotlight Organizations®, cuya herramienta para liderar el cambio incluye la monitorización y evaluación como una de las seis fases del ciclo de acción. En segundo lugar, se analizan las estrategias de monitorización y evaluación propuestas en la literatura, destacando la Asociación Profesional de Enfermeras de Ontario. Finalmente, se analizan las estrategias de monitorización y evaluación generadas por dos instituciones españolas participantes en el programa, centradas en adecuación de registros, explotación y análisis de indicadores, desarrollo de herramientas, procedimientos de evaluación y mecanismos de difusión y retroalimentación. Conclusiones. La definición de estrategias de monitorización y evaluación planificada de forma temprana contribuye a la viabilidad de la evaluación de la implantación y su sostenibilidad. Es necesario adaptarlas al contexto, con estrategias transversales que alcancen a toda la institución, facilitadas por la institución. Palabras clave: Ciencia de la Implementación; Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia; Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud; Mecanismos de Evaluación de la Atención de Salud; Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud
Introduction. Monitoring the usage of knowledge and evaluating results permits one to know the application of the evidence, knowledge, and attitude changes, the impact on health results, integration, and maintenance of the adopted practices. There exist weaknesses related to lack of systematization, limitation of the records, and quality of the process. This article's objective is to describe the experience generating monitoring strategies and evaluation of the results regarding the implementation of good practice guides in Spain. Topics for Reflection. In the first place, the measurement process of the results regarding the implementation of guides are reviewed, in the Best Practice Spotlight Organizations® program frame, whose tool to lead the change includes monitoring and evaluation as one of the sixth phases of the action cycle. In the second place, monitoring and evaluation strategies proposed in the literature are analyzed, highlighting the Professional Nurses Association of Ontario. Finally, the monitoring and evaluation strategies are analyzed by two Spanish institutions participating in the program, focused on the adequation of records, exploitation and indicator analysis, tools development, evaluation procedures, dissemination, and feedback mechanisms. Conclusions: The definition of monitoring and evaluation strategies planned in advance contributes to the viability of the evaluation regarding the implementation and its sustainability. Is necessary to adapt them to the context, with transversal strategies that reach the whole institution, facilitated by the institution. Keywords: Implementation Science; Evidence-Based Practice; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms; Quality Indicators, Health Care
Introdução. Monitorizar a utilização do conhecimento e avaliar os resultados permite-nos conhecer a aplicação das evidências, as mudanças nos conhecimentos e atitudes, o impacto nos resultados de saúde e a integração e manutenção das práticas adotadas. Existem fragilidades relacionadas à falta de sistematização, limitações de registros e qualidade do processo. O objetivo deste artigo é descrever a experiência na geração de estratégias de monitoramento e avaliação dos resultados da implementação de Manuais de Boas Práticas na Espanha. Divisão dos temas abordados. Em primeiro lugar, são revistos os processos de medição de resultados na implementação dos Manuais, no âmbito do Programa Best Practice Spotlight Organizations®, cuja ferramenta para liderar a mudança inclui a monitorização e avaliação como uma das seis fases do ciclo de ação. Em segundo lugar, são analisadas as estratégias de monitoramento e avaliação propostas na literatura, com destaque para a Associação Profissional de Enfermeiros de Ontário. Por fim, são analisadas as estratégias de monitoramento e avaliação geradas por duas instituições espanholas participantes do programa, focadas na adaptação de registros, exploração e análise de indicadores, desenvolvimento de ferramentas, procedimentos de avaliação e mecanismos de divulgação e feedback. Conclusões. A definição de estratégias de monitoramento e avaliação planeadas antecipadamente contribui para a viabilidade da avaliação da implementação e para a sua sustentabilidade. É necessário adaptá-los ao contexto, com estratégias transversais que alcancem toda a instituição, facilitadas pela instituição. Palavras-chave: Ciência da Implementação; Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências; Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde; Mecanismos de Avaliação da Assistência à Saúde; Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde
Asunto(s)
Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Mecanismos de Evaluación de la Atención de Salud , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Ciencia de la ImplementaciónRESUMEN
Stress can result in psychopathologies, such as anxiety or depression, when this risk factor continues in time. One major stressor was the COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered considerable emotional distress and mental health issues among different workers, including teachers, with another stressor: technology and online education. A mixed-method approach is presented in this research, combining a cross-sectional study of university teachers from Ecuador and Spain with a medium of twenty years of working experience (N = 55) and a bibliometric analysis carried out in three databases (161 documents). The levels of anxiety and depression, and therefore the risk of developing them as mental disorders, were high. The lack of training (p < 0.01), time (p < 0.05), or research regarding the use of technology in education (p < 0.01) and stress caused by COVID-19 (p < 0.001) were linked to frequency. The most relevant observational study obtained through the bibliometric analysis (138 citations and over 65% of methodological quality) indicated that previous training and behavioral factors are key in the stress related to technology. The combination of the results indicated that mental health in STEM teachers at university is related to diverse factors, from training to the family and working balance.