ArticleEpidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil2026
Translation and cultural adaptation to the Brazilian context of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment scale.
Article in Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo translate and culturally adapt the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment scale to the Brazilian context.
methodsThe translation and cross-cultural adaptation process took place in six stages: 1) authorization from the author of the original scale; 2) two translations of the scale into Brazilian Portuguese and synthesis into a single version; 3) back-translation; 4) evaluation of the initial version by a review committee (ten participants): clarity, comprehension, and suitability to the Brazilian context; 5) expert assessment I (same participants as the previous stage): evaluation of semantic, idiomatic, cultural, and conceptual equivalences; 6) expert assessment II (seven experts from five Brazilian regions): evaluation of semantic, idiomatic, cultural, and conceptual equivalences, considering linguistic variations in Brazil, and establishment of the final version. The experts involved in the different stages were professionals with academic experience or working in public health. For the assessments in stages 5 and 6, the content validity index was applied, considering agreement of at least 80.0% among experts as acceptable.
resultsThe 20 questions of the scale and their additional items (a total of 74 items to be answered) were translated and adapted according to the needs identified at different stages of the process. In stages 5 and 6, the questions of the three domains of the scale (evidence, context, and facilitation) demonstrated adequate content validity. Two questions presented a content validity index <80.0% in some equivalences. These and other items for which modifications were suggested were adjusted, resulting in the final version of the scale.
conclusionThe scale was translated and culturally adapted to the Brazilian context, demonstrating adequate content validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.