Translation and cultural validation of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire for Healthcare Professionals for Brazilian Portuguese

ABSTRACT

Background: Multiple sclerosis progression and disability can be rated differently by healthcare professionals. Therefore, how physicians perceive the disease can impact treatment decisions. There are no previous studies on this matter. Objective: To translate and transculturally validate the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire for Healthcare Professionals (IPQ-R HP), for use in Brazilian Portuguese. Methods: The process used to validate the IPQ-R HP was based on the steps presented in the guide proposed by Dorcas Beaton. The final version of the IPQ-R HP had 38 questions, divided into seven different dimensions to assess the patient's disease. Also, two clinical cases that were representative of real-life patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) were assembled to consider the two main profiles of the disease. We applied the questionnaire to neurologists at the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP) to assess their perception of MS. These doctors also answered a brief survey to establish the profile of the interviewees. For statistical analysis, we used Bayesian CFA models and kappa statistics. Conclusions: The kappa statistics showed a general agreement of 0.4. For the Bayesian CFAs with seven-factor correlation solution, we had a poor fit for case 1 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -52.893 to 273.797 and a PPP of 0.107. Regarding case 2, the model did not converge even after 50,000 iterations, which indicated that the specified model (i.e. seven-factor correlation solution) for case 2 was inadmissible. Thus, the IPQ-R HP questionnaire in Brazilian Portuguese has not been validated.

RESUMO

Antecedentes: A progressão da esclerose múltipla e a incapacidade podem ser avaliadas de formas diferentes por médicos. Portanto, a forma como estes percebem a doença pode afetar as decisões de tratamento. Não há estudos anteriores sobre o assunto. Procuramos traduzir e validar o Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised Healthcare Professionals (IPQ-R HP). Objetivos: Validação transcultural da versão IPQ-R HP para português. Métodos: O processo de validação do IPQ-R HP foi baseado nas etapas apresentadas no guia proposto por Dorcas Beaton. A versão final do IPQ-R HP continha 38 questões, divididas em sete dimensões diferentes para avaliar a doença do paciente. Além disso, dois casos clínicos representativos de esclerose múltipla (EM) foram criados para contemplar os dois perfis principais da doença. Aplicamos o questionário a neurologistas da UNIFESP para avaliar sua percepção sobre a EM, além de uma pesquisa para estabelecer o perfil dos entrevistados. Para a análise estatística, usamos modelos CFA Bayesianos e estatísticas kappa. Conclusões: A estatística kappa mostrou concordância geral de 0,4. Para os CFAs bayesianos com solução de sete fatores correlacionados, tivemos um ajuste ruim para o caso 1 com um intervalo de confiança de 95% variando de -52,893 a 273,797 e o PPP de 0,107. Em relação ao Caso 2, o modelo não convergiu mesmo após 50000 iterações, indicando que o modelo especificado (ou seja, solução de sete fatores correlacionados) para o caso 2 é inadmissível. Assim, o questionário IPQ-R HP em português não é validado.

Keywords:

Multiple Sclerosis - Surveys and Questionnaires - Disease - Perception - Validation Study

Palavras-chave:

Esclerose Múltipla - Inquéritos e Questionários - Doença - Percepção - Estudo de Validação

• REFERENCES

• 1 Pereira ABCNG, Lacativa MCS, Pereira FFC, Alvarenga RMP. Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Brazil: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015 Nov 1;4(6):572-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2015.08.004
• 2 Biotti D, Ciron J. First-line therapy in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2018 Jun;174(6):419-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2018.03.012
• 3 Bargiela D, Bianchi MT, Westover MB, Chibnik LB, Healy BC, De Jager PL, et al. Selection of first-line therapy in multiple sclerosis using risk-benefit decision analysis. Neurology. 2017 Feb 14;88(7):677-84. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.20200451202004513612
• 4 Arat S, Moons P, Vandenberghe J, Lenaerts JL, de Vlam K, Westhovens R. Diverging illness perceptions between physicians about patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis: a vignette-based study. Rheumatol Int. 2017 Jun;37(6):915-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3667-8
• 5 Arat S, Lenaerts JL, De Langhe E, Verschueren P, Moons P, Vandenberghe J, et al. Illness representations of systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis: a comparison of patients, their rheumatologists and their general practitioners. Lupus Sci Med. 2017 Nov 14;4(1):e000232. https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2017-000232
• 6 Arat S, Van den Zegel A, Van Rillaer M, Moons P, Vandenberghe J, De Langhe E, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of the validity and reliability of a revised illness perception questionnaire for healthcare professionals. BMC Nurs. 2016 Jun 1;15:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-016-0156-4
• 7 Vasconcelos CCF, Thuler LCS, Rodrigues BC, Calmon AB, Alvarenga RMP. Multiple sclerosis in Brazil: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016 Dec;151:24-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.011
• 8 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
• 9 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
• 10 Klein D. Implementing a general framework for assessing interrater agreement in Stata. Stata J. 2018 Dec 1;18(4):871-901. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800408
• 11 Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2008 May;61(Pt 1):29-48. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600
• 12 Gwet LK. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. 4th ed. Advanced Analytics, LLC; 2014. 426 p.
• 13 Brennan RL, Prediger DJ. Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Meas. 1981 Oct 1;41(3): 687-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
• 14 Krippendorff K. Estimating the reliability, systematic error and random error of interval data. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970 Apr 1;30(1):61-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000105
• 15 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74.
• 16 Muthén KL, Muthén BO. Mplus the comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: user’s guide. 5th ed. Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
• 17 Brown AT. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. Guilford Publications; 2015. 462 p.
• 18 Muthén B, Asparouhov T. Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychol Methods. 2012 Sep;17(3):313-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802
• 19 Shahin W, Kennedy GA, Stupans I. The impact of personal and cultural beliefs on medication adherence of patients with chronic illnesses: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019 Jul 1;13:1019-35. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S212046
• 20 Whitehead K, Reuber M. Illness perceptions of neurologists and psychiatrists in relation to epilepsy and nonepileptic attack disorder. Seizure. 2012 Mar 1;21(2):P104-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2011.09.012
• 21 Wilski M, Kocur P, Górny M, Koper M, Nadolska A, Chmielewski B, et al. Perception of multiple sclerosis impact and treatment efficacy beliefs: mediating effect of patient's Illness and self-appraisals. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Sep 1;58(3):437-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.06.013
• 22 Wilski M, Kocur P, Brola W, Tasiemski T. Psychological factors associated with self-management in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2020 Jul;142(1):50-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13236