There is also a high consistency in the ‘problems’ domain of the instrument on an inter-rater agreement study. Also, the values of I-CVI and S-CVI were in the range of 0.9–1.0 versus 0.85–0.97 in previous studies. However, this value is different from the value reported by Koubaity et al. However, the translation does not differ significantly in the interpretation of the main point of the sentence.įurthermore, the I-CVI and S-CVI values have a high content validity level because they passed Shrotryia and Dhanda’s content validity levels of ≥ 0.78 and 0.8, respectively. According to the suggestions from experts and respondents during the validation process, the changes in the number of word structure compared to the original version before the translation were influenced by the changes in the word structure in Bahasa Indonesia. These include the changes in word structure, especially in the ‘intervention acceptance’ domain, which is different from the original version because that of Bahasa Indonesia uses conjunctions to make the domain easier for users to understand.
After the forward (English-Bahasa Indonesia) and backward (Bahasa Indonesia-English) translations, some differences were noticed. This study is the first to translate, validate and determine the inter-rater agreement of the translated PCNE into Bahasa Indonesia. This study, therefore, aims to obtain, validate and determine the inter-rater agreement (percentage agreement and kappa statistics) of Bahasa Indonesia version of the PCNE version 9.00. Furthermore, the instrument has several translations including Spanish, Turkish, Croatian, French ( 12), Slovenia ( 7) and German ( 13). In this study, the PCNE instrument was selected as the starting point because it is structured, detailed and also identifies the patient’s DRP status based on their problems, causes and interventions. It is essential because the raters need to give the same value in the same conditions and cases. This is required to determine the extent to which the raters consistently assign a precise value to each rated item ( 11).
Therefore, the DRP classification system needs to be validated before it is widely used ( 8– 9).īesides having a good validity, an instrument also needs to have a good level of inter-rater reliability, which is a measure of the degree of agreement between two or more raters ( 10). Furthermore, the ease of use is also a specific requirement of the DRP classification system, which must be acceptable. Several classification systems, such as APS-Doc, Cipolle, DOCUMENT, Consensus of Granada, Strand Classification and the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) system, are applied ( 6– 7).Ī DRP classification system needs to have an open hierarchical structure with clear definitions for each category described in the instrument to reduce ambiguity or multiple interpretations when carrying out the coding process ( 8). Moreover, the documentation and classification of DRP can help pharmacists to identify and resolve DRP in a patient.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for understanding the importance of the pharmacist’s role in identifying, solving and reducing the incidence of DRP in patients ( 5). In Indonesia, DRP occurred in several chronic diseases such as diabetes ( 3), kidney ( 4) and heart failure ( 5). Some of the factors that contribute to the emergence of DRP in patients include inappropriate prescription, ineffective treatment, underdose, non-compliance, etc ( 2). Drug-related problems (DRP) are events or circumstances involving drug therapy that occur or potentially interfere with the achievement of desired health outcomes ( 1).
0 kommentar(er)
