Describes developing and validating a digital booklet for healthcare professionals, suggesting improved patient interactions.
This study aimed to describe the development and the content validation of a digital booklet, written in Brazilian Portuguese, designed for healthcare professionals on managing relationships with fibromyalgia patients. This study was structured in four distinct stages. In Stage 1, a narrative review was conducted with the following guiding question: 'What are the main findings of empirical qualitative research on the healthcare professional-fibromyalgia patient relationship?'. In Stage 2, the knowledge synthesis generated in Stage 1 was used by the research team to guide the development of the first version of the booklet. In Stage 3, the first version of the booklet was submitted to a qualitative analysis by a multidisciplinary committee composed of experts. The research team prepared the second version of the booklet by incorporating the experts' requested adjustments, and, in Stage 4, this version was submitted to a quantitative analysis by target audience members. Stage 1 led to the selection of 19 references, whose main results were organized in five thematic categories. In Stage 2, based on the research team's consensus, 10 recommendations were established and presented in the first version of the booklet. In Stage 3, the experts suggested adding specific information and correcting details in the wording of the booklet. These adjustments were implemented, resulting in the second version of the booklet, which was used in Stage 4. All recommendations presented in the booklet, as well as the booklet as a whole, were considered content-valid based on the quantitative analysis provided in Stage 4 by the target audience members. Therefore, the second version of the booklet has practical implications, as it may support Brazilian Portuguese-speaking healthcare professionals in enhancing their relational competencies in order to strengthen their interactions with fibromyalgia patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neves et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: