Translation and Validation of the Canadian <scp>ICU</scp> Family Satisfaction Questionnaire (<scp>FS</scp>‐<scp>ICU</scp>‐<scp>24R</scp>) to Danish—A Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family-centered care is vital in the intensive care unit, yet families often experience significant distress, increasing risks of anxiety and depression. Flexible presence, open communication, and involvement in care are central to supporting them. Guidelines recommend liberal visitation policies, structured communication, and staff education to strengthen family-centered practices. Measuring family satisfaction offers valuable insights to guide improvements, ensuring care addresses both patient needs and the well-being of families. Family satisfaction can be assessed with the Canadian questionnaire Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit (FS-ICU-24R), a validated tool available in 24 languages. It consists of 32 items covering care, information, decision making, end-of-life, and open feedback. Psychometric testing has shown high reliability, with distinct subscales for satisfaction with care and satisfaction with information/decision making. However, some evidence suggests that decision making and information could represent separate constructs. The aim of this study is to translate and culturally adapt the FS-ICU-24R into Danish and to test its reliability and validity among family members of intensive care unit patients in Denmark. Furthermore, we will examine whether the questionnaire is best structured into two or three subscales. METHOD: This prospective study will be conducted in two phases. Phase one will involve translation and cultural adaptation of the FS-ICU-24R into Danish using a standardized multistep approach. Phase two will test psychometric properties, including internal consistency, convergent and construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal structure. The study will be registered with the Central Denmark Region (D 1-16-02-51-24) and on Clinical Trials (NCT07087132). RESULTS: The study is expected to provide a valid and reliable Danish version of the FS-ICU-24R. CONCLUSION: A Danish version of the FS-ICU-24R will facilitate national and international research aimed at improving conditions for family members of intensive care unit patients.
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 | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".