Öz

Amaç: Yoğun bakım ünitelerinde (YBÜ), hastaların fonksiyonel durumunu değerlendirme klinik karar verme açısından kritik roldedir. Chelsea Kritik Bakım Fiziksel Değerlendirme Aracı (CPAx), YBÜ hastalarında fonksiyonel durumu değerlendirmek için geliştirilmiş, geçerliliği kanıtlanmış bir araçtır. Çalışmanın amacı; CPAx aracının Türkçeye kültürlerarası uyarlamasını yapmak ve yoğun bakım hastalarında geçerlik ve güvenirliğini değerlendirmektir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çeviri ve geri çeviri yöntemi ile Türkçe’ye uyarlanan araç, yoğun bakım ünitesinde yatan 60 hastaya uygulanmıştır. Güvenirlik analizi kapsamında, iç tutarlılık Cronbach’s alpha katsayısı ile değerlendirilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği kapsamında faktör Analizi kullanıldı. Kriter geçerliği kapsamında ise, CPAx aracı ile Fiziksel Fonksiyon YBÜ Testi (P-FIT) arasında Pearson korelasyon analizi yapılmıştır.

Bulgular: Aracın iç tutarlılığı yüksek bulunmuş, Cronbach’s alpha değeri 0,960 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Madde-toplam puan korelasyonlarının tamamı 0,30’un üzerinde çıkmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda, tüm maddelerin tek faktörde toplandığı görülmüştür. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde modelin iyi uyum gösterdiği belirlenmiştir (CMIN/df=1,207; CFI=0,993; NFI=0,959; GFI=0,907; RMSEA=0,059). Ayrıca, P-FIT ile yapılan korelasyon analizinde güçlü bir pozitif ilişki bulunmuştur (r = 0.892; p <0.001).

Sonuç: CPAx-TR’nin YBÜ hastalarında işlevselliği değerlendirmede kabul edilebilir düzeyde geçerlik ve güvenirlik gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: fonksiyonellik, güvenirlik, geçerlik, kritik bakım

Referanslar

  1. Fazzini B, Märkl T, Costas C, et al. The rate and assessment of muscle wasting during critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2023;27:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04253-0
  2. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5:90-2. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtim-2016-0016
  3. Nakanishi N, Oto J, Tsutsumi R, et al. Upper limb muscle atrophy associated with in-hospital mortality and physical function impairments in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: a two-center prospective observational study. J Intensive Care. 2020;8:87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-020-00507-7
  4. Puthucheary ZA, Rawal J, McPhail M, et al. Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA. 2013;310:1591-600. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.278481
  5. Li Z, Zhang Q, Zhang P, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for intensive care unit acquired weakness: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e22013. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022013
  6. Guedes LP, Oliveira ML, Carvalho GA. Deleterious effects of prolonged bed rest on the body systems of the elderly - a review. Rev Bras Geriatr Gerontol. 2018;21,499-06. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-22562018021.170167
  7. Aglawe DR, Agarwal BM, Sawant BD. Physical function in critically ill patients during the duration of ICU and hospital admission. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2022;26:314-8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24144
  8. Silva PBD, Santos LJD. Patient functionality and walking speed after discharge from the intensive care unit. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31:529-35. https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20190066
  9. Iwashyna TJ. Trajectories of recovery and dysfunction after acute illness, with implications for clinical trial design. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186:302-4. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201206-1138ED
  10. Iwashyna TJ, Hodgson CL, Pilcher D, et al. Timing of onset and burden of persistent critical illness in Australia and New Zealand: a retrospective, population-based, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4:566-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30098-4
  11. Parry SM, Huang M, Needham DM. Evaluating physical functioning in critical care: considerations for clinical practice and research. Crit Care. 2017;21:249. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1827-6
  12. Elbiaa MA, Elsayed SM. Perceived barriers among Undergraduate nursing students toward performing physical assessment of critical care patients. Egyptian Journal of Health Care. 2022;13,194-02. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhc.2022.25133334052568
  13. Wu Y, Zhang Z, Jiang B, et al. Current practice and barriers to ICU-acquired weakness assessment: a cross-sectional survey. Physiotherapy. 2021;112:135-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2021.01.002
  14. Timenetsky KT, Junior JAS, Cancio ASA, et al. Functional independence profile of critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2015;19,1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc14680
  15. Skinner EH, Berney S, Warrillow S, Denehy L. Development of a physical function outcome measure (PFIT) and a pilot exercise training protocol for use in intensive care. Crit Care Resusc. 2009;11:110-15.
  16. Dos Reis NF, Figueiredo FCXS, Biscaro RRM, Lunardelli EB, Maurici R. Psychometric properties of the barthel index used at intensive care unit discharge. Am J Crit Care. 2022;31:65-72. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2022732
  17. Christakou A, Papadopoulos E, Patsaki E, Sidiras G, Nanas S. Functional assessment scales in a general intensive care unit. Hospital Chronicles. 2013;8,164-70.
  18. Akerman E, Fridlund B, Samuelson K, Baigi A, Ersson A. Psychometric evaluation of 3-set 4P questionnaire. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2013;29:40-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2012.06.002
  19. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0
  20. Corner EJ, Wood H, Englebretsen C, et al. The Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool (CPAx): validation of an innovative new tool to measure physical morbidity in the general adult critical care population; an observational proof-of-concept pilot study. Physiotherapy. 2013;99:33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2012.01.003
  21. Corner EJ, Soni N, Handy JM, Brett SJ. Construct validity of the Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool: an observational study of recovery from critical illness. Crit Care. 2014;18:R55. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13801
  22. Wang TH, Wu CP, Wang LY. Impact of peripheral muscle strength on prognosis after extubation and functional outcomes in critically ill patients: a feasibility study. Sci Rep. 2021;11:16082. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95647-7
  23. Zhang J, Feng J, Jia J, et al. Research progress on the pathogenesis and treatment of ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. Heliyon. 2023;9:e22317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22317
  24. Astrup K, Corner E, Van Tulder M, Sørensen L. Reliability and responsiveness of the Danish version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx). Physiother Theory Pract. 2023;39:193-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2021.2005197
  25. Eggmann S, Verra ML, Stefanicki V, et al. Predictive validity of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults: a prospective clinimetric study. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45:111-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.2022785
  26. Eggmann S, Verra ML, Stefanicki V, et al. German version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-GE): translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44:4509-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1909152
  27. Holdar U, Eriksson F, Siesage K, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and inter-rater reliability of the Swedish version of the Chelsea critical care assessment tool (CPAX-Swe) in critically ill patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43:1600-04. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1668971
  28. Schanke CM, Brekka AK, Rimehaug SA, Klokkerud M, Andersen TM. Norwegian version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-NOR): translation, face validity, cross-cultural adaptation and inter-rater reliability. J Clin Med. 2023;12:5033. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155033
  29. Whelan M. The use of the CPAX tool in a South African intensive care unit: clinical outcomes and physiotherapists’ perceptions’. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand; 2017.
  30. Zhang Z, Wang G, Wu Y, et al. Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e045550. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045550
  31. Gregoire J. ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests of article. International Journal of testing. 2018;18,101-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166
  32. World Health Organization (WHO). Adaptation and translation guide of document. 2023. Available at: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/366278
  33. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & QuickDASH outcome measures. 2007. Institute for Work & Health; 2007. Available at: https://dash.iwh.on.ca/sites/dash/files/downloads/cross_cultural_adaptation_2007.pdf
  34. Alpar R. Applied statistics and validity-reliability with examples from sports, health and educational sciences. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2016.
  35. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The richmond agitation-sedation scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1338-44. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2107138
  36. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818-29.
  37. Avcı E, Karadibak D, Savcı S, et al. Relationship between physical function ICU test (PFIT) and functional tests in early period after open abdominal surgery. European Respiratory Journal. 2015;46(Suppl 59):PA2797. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2015.PA2797
  38. Denehy L, de Morton NA, Skinner EH, et al. A physical function test for use in the intensive care unit: validity, responsiveness, and predictive utility of the physical function ICU test (scored). Phys Ther. 2013;93:1636-45. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120310
  39. Alpar R. Uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlilik-güvenirlik: SPSS’de çözümleme adımları ile birlikte. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2014.
  40. Erkuş A. Psikometri üzerine yazılar. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği; 2003.
  41. Mallery P, George D. SPSS for windows step by step. United States: Allyn & Bacon, Inc; 2000.
  42. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu SY. Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2013;33:210-23. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2011-26747
  43. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık; 2018. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789756802748
  44. Martin C, Newell R. Factor structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in individuals with facial disfigurement of article. Psychology, Health & Medicine Name. 2004;9:327-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500410001721891
  45. Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN. Hemşirelikte araştırma: süreç, uygulama ve kritik. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevi; 2014.
  46. Şimşek ÖF. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş-temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks; 2007.

Telif hakkı ve lisans

Telif hakkı © 2025 Yazar(lar). Açık erişimli bu makale, orijinal çalışmaya uygun şekilde atıfta bulunulması koşuluyla, herhangi bir ortamda veya formatta sınırsız kullanım, dağıtım ve çoğaltmaya izin veren Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) altında dağıtılmıştır.

Nasıl atıf yapılır?

1.
Uyaroğlu MB, Pehlivan E, Koyutürk G, Baydilli KN, Parlak H. Chelsea yoğun bakım fiziksel değerlendirme aracı’nın (CPAx-TR) Türkçe versiyonunun güvenirliği ve geçerliği. Turk J Intensive Care. 2025;23(3):222-230. https://doi.org/10.63729/TJIC.2025.665