Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Dignity Therapy Question Protocol to Brazilian Portuguese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dignity therapy (DT) was developed to help patients at their end of life to reframe and give meaning to their illness process. The DT question protocol focuses on personhood and important aspects of the individual's life. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the Dignity Therapy Question Protocol (DTQP) to Brazilian Portuguese. METHODS: This was a descriptive and methodological study, and cross-cultural adaptation process comprised 4 stages: (1) translation and synthesis of English original version protocol into Brazilian Portuguese, (2) back translation, (3) experts committee, and (4) pretest. RESULTS: - demonstrated a content validity index of 1 for all equivalences. The initial sample consisted of 41 participants (9 [21.9%] refused to participate and 1 [2.43%] dropped out). The pretest was applied to 30 (73.1%) participants, 15 of them were female and the mean age was 53.4 years. The final version consisted of 10 questions that were approved by the original authors who affirmed that the DTQP Brazilian Portuguese version maintained the original English characteristics. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The Brazilian cultural adaptation of the DTQP was well understood by patients. It will be very useful in palliative care clinical practice for patients nearing end of life. The adapted version to Brazilian Portuguese will facilitate future studies using the DTQP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".