Translation into Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil of the Canadian survey of mobilization of ICU patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the “Canadian survey of mobilization of intensive care unit patients” questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. This instrument evaluates intensive care unit (ICU) professionals’ knowledge about early mobilization and its importance, their perceptions about barriers and rehabilitation practices with critically ill patients. The protocol includes the following steps: authorization and assignment of rights of use; translation of the instrument into Portuguese; reconciliation; back-translation to the original language; revision and harmonization of back-translation; approval from the main author of the original questionnaire; revision of the Portuguese version; cognitive debriefing; reconciliation; and preparation of the final version. Due to some conceptual and cultural differences between the two countries, some questions were discussed with the author of the original instrument, who agreed with the suggested alterations. During cognitive debriefing, the 10 selected professionals tested the questionnaire’s clarity, understanding, and acceptability, indicating any difficulties they had regarding its content. Many interviewees reported that the instrument raises important reflections on daily practices and the benefits of early mobilization. The questionnaire entitled “Pesquisa de mobilização de pacientes em unidade de terapia intensiva: conhecimento, perspectivas e práticas atuais” was translated and culturally adapted to Brazilian Portuguese and can be used to evaluate aspects of early mobilization by professionals who participate in this process in adult and pediatric ICUs. Future studies using this version will be necessary to verify that the questionnaire provides reproducible and valid measurements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".