1. Investigación

Background/Objective:Theaimofthestudywastoexaminethefactorstructureandpsy-chometricpropertiesoftheSpanishversionoftheMini-MentalAdjustmenttoCancerScale(Mini-MAC)inalargesampleofpatientswithnon-metastatic,resectedcancer.Methods:Prospective,observational,multicenterstudyforwhich914patientswererecruitedfrom15Spanishhospitals.Exploratoryandconfirmatoryfactoranalyses,validityandreliabilityanalyseswereconducted.Results:Factor-analyticresultsindicateda4-factorstructureoftheSpanishversionoftheMini-MAC.ThreesubscaleshavepsychometricpropertiessimilartothoseofHelplessness,Anxiouspreoccupation,andCognitiveavoidanceoftheoriginaltheMini-MAC.TheFightingspiritandtheFatalismsubscaleswerecombinedonthePositiveattitudescale.Thefourfactor-derivedscalescoresexhibitedacceptableaccuracyforindividualmeasurementpurposes,aswellasstabilityovertimeintest-retestassessmentsat6months.Validityassessmentsfoundmeaningfulrelationsbetweenthederivedscalescores,andBriefSymptomInventorydepressionandanxietyscoresandFunctionalAssessmentofChronicIllnessTherapyspiritualwell-beingscores.Conclusions:TheSpanishversionoftheMini-MACprovidesreliableandvalidmeasuresforpatientswithnon-metastatic,resectedcancer,andresultscorroboratetheinstrument’scross-culturalvalidity

Objective To determine the psychometric properties of the Person-Centered Therapeutic Relationship in Physiotherapy Scale (PCTR-PT) in order to find the most appropriate fit for the tool. Methods Patients who had received treatment at the physiotherapy service of nine hospitals in Spain were invited to complete the 31 items of the PCTR-PT scale. To select the most appropriate items of the PCTR-PT, an exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) was performed using the maximum likelihood and oblique rotation (promin) methods. Factor validity, goodness-of-fit and psychometric properties were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Convergent (CFA) and discriminant validity were calculated. Internal consistency was verified using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine temporal stability. Results 366 patients over 18 years old who had received, at least, 15 physiotherapy treatment sessions completed the questionnaire. The results of the exploratory factor analysis revealed a tool with 15 items in four factors [Relational Bond (N items = 4); Individualized Partnership (N items = 4); Professional Empowerment (N items = 3) and Therapeutic Communication (N items = 4)], explaining 78.4% of the variance of the total variables of this tool. The confirmatory factor analysis further confirmed the four-structure model. Reliability of the tool was approved by Cronbach’s alpha in all four dimensions, as all were above .70, ranging from .84 (Individualized Partnership) to .91 (Professional Empowerment). = 0.94. Test-retest was performed with two-week intervals, indicating an appropriate stability for the scale (ICC = 0.900). Conclusion The Person-Centered Therapeutic Relationship in Physiotherapy Scale (PCTR-PT) is a useful, valid and applicable instrument to evaluate the person-centered therapeutic relationship during physiotherapy interventions. It would be interesting to investigate the predictive capacity (sensitivity and specificity) of the PCTR-PT scale.

Objectives This study sought to develop a tool for evaluating person-centered therapeutic relationships within physiotherapy services, and to examine the content validity of the same. Methods A mixed qualitative and quantitative study was performed in three distinct phases: 1) the items were generated based on a literature review and a content analysis of focus groups of patients and physiotherapists; 2) an e-Delphi survey process was performed based on three rounds to select and refine the proposed questionnaire; 3) two rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate the comprehension of items, the clarity of language and the appropriateness and relevance of content. Results Thirty-one items were generated based on the seven domains identified after the analysis of four focus groups of physiotherapists and four patient focus groups. Nine experts participated in the e-Delphi survey. Fifty-five patients participated in the two rounds of the cognitive pre-tests. Participating patients were from public and private physical therapy services. Based on the participants’ suggestions, four items were removed, and four were added, whereas 16 were reworded. Conclusions The final tool comprised 31 items divided into seven domains. The response format was based on a 5-point Likert frequency scale. The response options ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.