Confiabilidade interobservador da Classificação Internacional de Cuidados Primários

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:The International Classifi cation of Primary Care was developed as an attempt to overcome the limitations of the International Statistical Classifi cation of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, when used for primary health care. The aim of the study was to evaluate the interobserver reliability of the International Classifi cation for Primary Care when coding reasons for health-related interruption of daily activities. METHODS:Data analyzed pertained to 801 subjects from Phase 2 of the Pró-Saúde Study, involving the employees of a Rio de Janeiro university who reported having been prevented from carrying out any of their usual activities (work, study, or leisure) for health-related reasons in the two weeks prior to data collection. Health problems reported in response to an open question were separately coded by two classifi ers. Interobserver reliability with respect to number of health problems was calculated by weighted kappa; for the remaining analyses (chapters and full codes), crude kappa coeffi cients were used. RESULTS:A total of 1,641 health problems were coded by the fi rst classifi er, and 1,629 by the second. Interobserver reliability with respect to the number of health problems coded was substantial (weighted kappa=0.94; 95% CI: 0.93;0.94). Chapter and full codes showed substantial (kappa=0.89; 95% CI: 0.88;0.90) and moderate (0.76; 95% CI: 0.76;0.78) reliability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that the International Classifi cation of Primary Care is adequate for the coding of health-related reasons for interruption of daily activities.

Cross-cultural translation of quality instruments in the organ donation process

“…(16,17) The simple agreement average of the interobserver evaluation corresponded to 97.6%, and the mean simple agreement of the test and retest was 97%, indicating an excellent agreement, in line with other studies. (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) The data revealed that the instruments of the Quality Assurance program present equivalence and excellent stability when compared to those from other studies. (16)(17)(18)(19) We believe that, through these instruments, the managers of the National Transplantation System can encourage hospital managers to use these tools in order to develop indicators, based on concise information obtained from the medical records of patients deceased at Critical Patient Units.…”

“…This suggests that the inter-observer agreement of items lies within the levels recommended by other authors, with Kappa values of 0.68, 0.73, 0.80, 0.92, 0.97. (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) Still, in these studies, values of 0.68, 0.86, 0.89 and 0.92 for the tests and re-tests were identified. (16,17) The simple agreement average of the interobserver evaluation corresponded to 97.6%, and the mean simple agreement of the test and retest was 97%, indicating an excellent agreement, in line with other studies.…”

“…(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) Still, in these studies, values of 0.68, 0.86, 0.89 and 0.92 for the tests and re-tests were identified. (16,17) The simple agreement average of the interobserver evaluation corresponded to 97.6%, and the mean simple agreement of the test and retest was 97%, indicating an excellent agreement, in line with other studies. (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) The data revealed that the instruments of the Quality Assurance program present equivalence and excellent stability when compared to those from other studies.…”

“…(15) In another study, 17% of the items were highlighted as hardly altered. (16) The content validity of the instruments was considered excellent, with a final average content validation index of 0.9 when compared with other studies, with indexes of 0.67, 0.80, 0.9 and 1.0. (12,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) The pre-test stage was crucial in this process.…”

“…(16) The content validity of the instruments was considered excellent, with a final average content validation index of 0.9 when compared with other studies, with indexes of 0.67, 0.80, 0.9 and 1.0. (12,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) The pre-test stage was crucial in this process. In this stage, there was the possibility to use the instruments, to detect possible errors, to confirm that both the presentation of the instruments and all questions are understandable to those collecting the information.…”