Construction and validation of an instrument for the structural assessment of wards for urinary continence in older adults
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3361.3374Keywords:
Urinary Incontinence, Aged, Hospitalization, Structure of Services, Delphi Technique, Validation StudyAbstract
Objective: to build and validate an instrument for structural assessment of wards for the preservation of urinary continence in hospitalized older adults. Method: this is a methodological study divided into two stages. The first corresponded to an integrative literature review that guided the construction of the instrument. The second consisted of the content validation stage of the instrument, by means of expert consensus, using the Delphi technique. The selected experts were recognized in the field and authors of the articles included in the integrative review. Results: six experts participated in the content validation, which resulted in the “Instrument for Structural Assessment of Wards for the Preservation of Urinary Continence in Older Adults”, composed of 27 items, distributed in three dimensions: “physical structure”, “human resources”, and “material resources”. Two Delphi rounds were carried out for validation, resulting in a final version with 83% agreement among the experts. Conclusion: the instrument reached content validity, requiring application for clinical validation. However, it can be used by researchers and health staff in hospital settings, in order to identify structural weaknesses and guide the priority of interventions for the quality and safety of this care.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.