Measurement of Practices-Knowledge-Attitudes of the Nursing Process: Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v39n3e15Keywords:
nursing process, standardized nursing terminology, nursing methodology research, health knowledge, attitudes, practiceAbstract
Objective. To analyze the literature available on the psychometric properties of the instruments to measure knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the nursing care process.
Methods. This was a narrative-type review conducted by following the recommendations of the PRISMA declaration. The search strategy was executed in two stages; through the search in databases by two reviewers and – thereafter – three reviewers identified independently the studies and evaluated the methodological quality of the measurement instruments by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) property checklist boxes.
Results. Of 71 studies identified for the full-text review, only seven complied with the inclusion criteria that represent four instruments (Q-DIO, D-CATCH, NP-CDSS, PNP). It was found that the instruments continue in their validation and appropriation processes to reality in health services.
Conclusion. In spite of the evident evolution of the instruments to evaluate the implementation of the nursing care process, the need is still valid for an instrument that measures aspects of knowledge, attitudes, and practices in every stage of the process.
Downloads
References
1. Macieira T, Smith M, Davis N, Yao Y, Wilkie D, Lopez KD, et al. Evidence of Progress in Making Nursing Practice Visible Using Standardized Nursing Data: a Systematic Review. AMIA Ann. Symp. Proc. 2018; 2017:1205–14
2. Boaventura AP, dos Santos PA, Duran ECM. Conocimiento teórico-práctico del enfermero del Proceso de Enfermería y Sistematización de Enfermería. Enferm. Glob 2017; 16(46):182–216.
3. López JJ, Moreno MG, Saavedra CH, Espinosa L, Camacho JU. La importancia del registro clínico de enfermería: un acercamiento cualitativo. NURE Invest. 2018; 15(93):1-9.
4. Odutayo PO, Olaogun AA, Oluwatosin AO, Ogunfowokan AA. Impact of an educational program on the use of standardized nursing languages for nursing documentation among public health nurses in Nigeria. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2013; 24(2):108–12.
5. Romero-Sánchez JM, Paloma-Castro O, Paramio-Cuevas JC, Pastor-Montero SM, O’Ferrall-González C, Gabaldón-Bravo EM, et al. Desarrollo y evaluación psicométrica de una forma abreviada de la escala de posicionamiento ante el diagnóstico enfermero. Rev. Esc. Enferm. 2013; 47(3):591–9.
6. Zamanzadeh V, Valizadeh L, Tabrizi FJ, Behshid M, Lotfi M. Challenges associated with the implementation of the nursing process: A systematic review. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2015; 20(4):411–9.
7. Miskir Y, Emishaw S. Determinants of Nursing Process Implementation in North East Ethiopia: Cross-Sectional Study. Nurs. Res. Pract. 2018; 2018(7940854):9.
8. Akhtar S, Hussain M, Afzal M, Gilani SA. Barriers and Facilitators for Execution of Nursing Process among Nurses from Medical and Surgical Wards in a Public. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manage. 2018; 5:170–86.
9. Agyeman-Yeboah J, Korsah KA, Okrah J. Factors that influence the clinical utilization of the nursing process at a hospital in Accra, Ghana. BMC Nursing. 2017; 16(30):7.
10. Mahmoud MH, Bayoumy HM. Barriers and facilitators for execution of nursing process from nurses’ perspective. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2014; 2(2):300–15.
11. Batista-Sánchez MR, Alvarado-Gallegos E. Factores relacionados con la práctica del proceso de enfermería en servicios de hospitalización. Rev. Enferm. Inst. Mex. Seguro Soc. 2015; 23(2):83–90.
12. Gutiérrez OA, Torres CA, Loboa NJ. Factores relacionados con la aplicación del proceso de enfermería en instituciones hospitalarias de Colombia. Rev. Cuid. 2018; 9(1):2007–16.
13. Rojas JG, Durango PP. Aplicación del proceso de atención de enfermería en cuidados intensivos. Invest. Educ. Enferm. 2010; 28(3):323–35.
14. Ledesma-Delgado ME, Rino MM. The nursing process presented as routine care actions: building its meaning in clinical nurses’ perspective. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem. 2009; 17(3):328–34.
15. Flores LF. Nivel de conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas sobre dengue en el asentamiento humano Túpac Amaru, Distrito El Porvenir, La Libertad - 2016. [Escuela de Medicina]: Universidad Nacional de Trujillo; 2018.
16. Tiga DC, Parra DI, Domínguez CC. Competencias en proceso de enfermería en estudiantes de práctica clínica. Rev. Cuid. 2014; 5(1):585–94.
17. Torres-Santiago M, Zárate-Grajales RA, Matus-Miranda R. Calidad de los registros clínicos de enfermería: Elaboración de un instrumento para su evaluación. Enferm. Univ. 2018; 8(1):17–25.
18. Paans W, Sermeus W, Nieweg RMB, van der Schans CP. D-Catch instrument: development and psychometric testing of a measurement instrument for nursing documentation in hospitals. J. Adv. Nurs. 2010; 66(6):1388–400.
19. Björvel C, Thorell-Ekstrand I, Wredling R. Development of an audit instrument for nursing care plans in the patient record. Qual. Health Care. 2000; 9:6–13.
20. Müller-Staub M, de Graaf-Waar H, Paans W. An Internationally Consented Standard for Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support Systems in Electronic Health Records. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2016; 34(11):493–502.
21. Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, Coon CD. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value Health. 2015; 18(1):25–34.
22. Magno C. Demonstrating the Difference between Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory Using Derived Test Data. Int. J. Educ. Psycholo. Assess. 2009;1(1):1–11.
23. Orozco L. Medición en salud. Diagnóstico y evaluación de resultados. Un manual crítico más allá de lo básico. Bucaramanga: Publicaciones UIS; 2010.
24. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015; 4(1).
25. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2016; 20(2):105–13.
26. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet H, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual. Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1147–57.
27. Müller-Staub M, Graaf-Waar H, Paans W. An Internationally Consented Standard for Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support Systems in Electronic Health Records. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2016; 34(11):493–502.
28. da Costa Linch GF, Müller-Staub M, Moraes MA, Azzolin K, Rabelo ER. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes (Q-DIO) instrument into Brazilian Portuguese. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2012; 23(3):153–8.
29. Müller-Staub M, da Costa Linch GF, Rabelo ER. Quality of nursing records and standardized language: literature review. Online Braz. J. Nurs. 2010; 9(2):1
30. da Costa Linch GF, Rabelo-Silva ER, Keenan GM, Moraes MA, Stifter J, Müller-Staub M. Validation of the Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions, and Outcomes (Q-DIO) instrument for use in Brazil and the United States. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2015; 26(1):19–25.
31. D’Agostino F, Barbaranelli C, Paans W, Belsito R, Vela RJ, Alvaro R, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the D-Catch, an Instrument to Measure the Accuracy of Nursing Documentation. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2015; 28(3):145–52.
32. Guedes ES, Sousa RMC, Turrini RNT, Baltar VT, Cruz DALM. Adaptación y validación del instrumento posiciones sobre el proceso de enfermería. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2013; 21(1).
33. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, de Vet HCW, Bouter LM, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN standards and criteria for evaluating the content validity of health‐related Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures: a Delphi study. Qual. Life Res. 2017; 7(5):1159-70.
34. Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press; 2015.
35. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2000.
36. Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Qual. Life Res. 2007; 16(1):5–18.
37. Reise SP, Yu J. Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. J. Educ. Meas. 1990;2 7(2):133–44.
38. Reise S, Moore T, Maydeu-Olivares A. Target Rotations and Assessing the Impact of Model Violations on the Parameters of Unidimensional Item Response Theory Models. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2011; 71(4):684–711
39. Linacre J. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement as a Methodology. 1994; 7.
40. May-Uitz S, Salas-Ortegón SC, Tun-González DT, Pacheco-Lizama JG, Collí-Novelo LB, Puch-Ku EBS. Evaluación de conocimientos, habilidades y actitudes sobre el proceso de enfermería. Rev. Enferm. Inst. Mex. Seguro Soc. 2014; 22(1):13–8
41. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual. Life Res. 2010; 19(4):539–49.
42. Leyva YE. Una reseña sobre la validez de constructo de pruebas referidas a criterio. Perfiles educativos. 2011; 33(131):131–54.
43. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, Tugwell MBP, Clarke M, Williamson PR, et al. Guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a Core Outcome Set. Comet Initiative; 2016.
44. Manterola C, Otzen T. Los Sesgos en Investigación Clínica. Int. J. Morphol. 2015; 33(3):1156–64.
45. Hernández-Sampieri R, Fernández-Collado C, Baptista-Lucio P. Selección de la muestra. In: Hernández-Sampieri R, Fernández-Collado C, Baptista-Lucio P, editors. Metodología de la Investigación. 2014; 6.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Investigación y Educación en Enfermería
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Derechos de propiedad / Direitos de Propriedade
English: If the article is accepted for publication, all copyright will be of exclusive property of Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. The text and the graphics included in the publication are exclusive responsibility of the authors and not necessarily reflect the thought of the Editorial Committee.
Español: Si el artículo es aprobado para publicación, todos los derechos son de propiedad de Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. El texto y las gráficas incluidas en la publicación son de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente refleja el pensamiento del Comité Editorial.
Português: Se o artigo for aceito para publicação, todos os direitos autorais serão de propriedade exclusiva de Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. O texto e os gráficos incluídos na publicação são de responsabilidade exclusiva dos autores e não refletem necessariamente o pensamento do Comitê Editorial.
