Translation, Cultural Adaptation of the Portuguese Provider Attitudes toward Cardiac Rehabilitation and Referral (PACRR-P) Scale and Assessment of Its’ Measurement Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Access to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is contingent upon physician referrals, yet these are often inadequate, particularly in low-resource settings. This multi-method study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the Portuguese version of the Provider Attitudes toward CR and Referral (PACRR-P) scale, as well as to identify key factors influencing CR referral in a Latin American context for the first time. METHODS: The PACRR was translated into Brazilian Portuguese through a rigorous process involving independent translation, back-translation, and expert panel review to ensure face, content, and cross-cultural validity. A total of 44 Brazilian physicians completed the questionnaire, allowing for an assessment of internal consistency, criterion validity, and convergent validity. RESULTS: The findings confirmed the face, content, and cultural validity of the 20 translated items, with a mean item clarity rating of 4.8/5. The final version included 17 of the original 19 PACRR-P items, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.73. Referral rates were significantly associated with over one-third of the PACRR-P items, preliminarily supporting the scale's criterion validity, while correlations with the ReCaRe scores further supported its convergent validity. The most prominent barriers to referral were a lack of familiarity with CR site locations, absence of a standard referral form, and lack of automatic referral processes. CONCLUSIONS: The PACRR's validity and reliability among Portuguese-speaking providers are preliminarily supported.
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 | 0.001 | 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".