Técnica Delphi no processo de validação do Questionário de Avaliação da Atenção Básica (QualiAB) para aplicação nacional1

• Autor(a) principal: Zarili, Thais Fernanda Tortorelli [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Castanheira, Elen Rose Lodeiro [UNESP], Nunes, Luceime Olivia [UNESP], Sanine, Patrícia Rodrigues [UNESP], Carrapato, Josiane Fernandes Lozigia, Machado, Dinair Ferreira [UNESP], Ramos, Nádia Placideli [UNESP], Mendonça, Carolina Siqueira [UNESP], Nasser, Mariana Arantes, Andrade, Marta Campagnoni, Nemes, Maria Ines Battistella
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902021190505; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/212829
• topic: Quality of Health Care; Validation Studies; Delphi Technique; Peer Review; Primary Health Care; Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde; Estudos de Validação; Técnica Delfos; Revisão por Pares; Atenção Primária à Saúde

This article aims to describe the use of the Delphi Technique in a process of updating and validating the content of the Primary Care Services Quality Assessment Questionnaire (QualiAB) for national application. In this study, 19 experts with experience in research in health evaluation, care and management in Primary Health Care (PHC) agreed to participate. A revised version of the QualiAB instrument with 105 indicators was submitted for evaluation as to its relevance, national applicability and acceptability. The modified Delphi Technique was performed in two rounds. The response rate of experts in the first round was 73.6%, 40 indicators were accepted and 65 did not reach consensus, of which 54 obtained suggestions to change the question and/or indicator. In the second, the response rate was 92.8%, and 65 indicators were resent with incorporation of changes, of which six were accepted. Of the remaining 59, 51 obtained suggestions for change. The modified Delphi Technique contributed to the improvement of the QualiAB instrument as an intermediate step in an iterative validation process. However, the performance in two rounds proved to be insufficient to validate the organizational quality indicators in view of the scope and diversity of the actions performed by the PHC services.