• Nubia de Fátima Costa Oliveira, Oliveira Pena Costa Leonardo L, Roger Nelson, Chris G Maher, Paul F Beattie, Rob de Bie, WarleyMelo Oliveira, Camara Azevedo Daniel D, and da Cunha Menezes Costa Luciola L.
• Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
• J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Nov 1; 44 (11): 879-89.

Study DesignClinical measurement study.ObjectivesTo translate and cross-culturally adapt the MedRisk Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction With Physical Therapy Care (MRPS) into Brazilian Portuguese and to test its measurement properties.BackgroundTo date, there is no standardized instrument for measuring patient satisfaction with physical therapy care in Brazil.MethodsThe MRPS was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Brazilian Portuguese. Patients completed the MRPS and a global change measure after 5 or more treatment visits. A subset of patients also completed the instrument a second time, 24 to 48 hours after the first assessment. We evaluated factorial validity, internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects.ResultsThree hundred three patients with different musculoskeletal conditions receiving physical therapy care in Brazil participated in this study. A 3-factor solution labeled as interpersonal, convenience and efficiency, and patient education provided the best factor loadings. Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from .63 to .77, intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.64 to 0.79, and standard errors of measurement ranged from 0.86 to 1.75 points. Thirteen items of the MRPS were moderately correlated with the global measure of change. A large ceiling effect was detected.ConclusionAlthough we did not fully achieve the measurement properties suggested by the guidelines, we believe that the MRPS can be used among Brazilian Portuguese-speaking patients. Some differences with regard to factor structure of the Brazilian Portuguese MPRS compared with the English version were observed. The reason for this is likely a combination of cultural aspects, differences in clinical settings, and patient expectation.

18 keywords...

hide…