RNOtherThe Journal of cardiovascular nursing2022

Translation and Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Self-care of Hypertension Inventory for Thais With Hypertension.

Chennet Phonphet, Jom Suwanno, Ladda Thiamwong and 2 others

PMID 35090153

WHAT IT FOUND

The Thai hypertension self-care questionnaire was feasible and gave consistent answers when patients repeated it or when two investigators scored the same patient.

It can help assess self-care in rural Thai primary care, not improve outcomes.

Key findings

01The Thai questionnaire was feasible: interviews lasted 8 to 15 minutes, and older, less educated patients took longer.

02The scores were very stable: item-level agreement values were 0.99 to 1.00 between investigators and 0.95 to 1.00 on repeat testing.

03Nine experts rated every item as relevant, clear, simple, and unambiguous.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The pretest used 140 participants from 3 rural villages, so it may not fit urban Thai patients or other healthcare settings. The reliability testing used only 40 participants for interobserver agreement and 60 for test-retest. The study did not assess internal consistency, construct validity, criterion validity, or floor and ceiling effects. The sample was mostly older, female, primary education, and agricultural workers, so it may not apply to younger, male, urban, or more educated patients. The paper reports feasibility and reliability, not blood pressure control or other clinical outcomes.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The supplied article text does not name a funder.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that using this questionnaire improves hypertension self-care or blood pressure. It was tested only for feasibility and consistency, and the authors did not assess internal consistency, construct validity, criterion validity, or floor and ceiling effects.

Read it on PubMed →