Resumo O objetivo foi analisar, em perspectiva comparada, estratégias e ações políticas adotadas em resposta à pandemia de COVID-19 na Alemanha e na Espanha em 2020. Baseando-se no institucionalismo histórico, o foco foi a institucionalidade da atuação governamental em cinco dimensões de atuação. Os resultados evidenciaram diferentes capacidades estatais na coordenação, implementação e efetividade de estratégias. Pontos fortes da gestão e governança da crise estão relacionados ao reconhecimento da sua gravidade e capacidade de negociação; capacidade de produção nacional de insumos e equipamentos; e amplo direcionamento de recursos fiscais e financeiros do governo central para as áreas sanitária, social e econômica. Esses aspectos variaram entre os casos, atuando como diferencial relevante na resposta governamental. Outros diferenciais foram: estrutura do sistema de saúde; disponibilidade de trabalhadores; e sistema nacional de ciência e tecnologia, destacando a importância de investimentos de médio e longo prazo.

Abstract This study aimed to analyze comparatively strategies and political actions adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and Spain in 2020. Based on historical institutionalism, we focused on the institutionality of government action in five work dimensions. The results showed different state capacities in coordination, implementation, and effectiveness of strategies. Crisis management and governance strengths are related to recognizing its severity and negotiation skills; national production capacity of supplies and equipment; and broad targeting of fiscal and financial resources from central government to health, social, and economic areas. These aspects varied between cases, acting as a relevant differential in governmental response. Other differentials were health system’s structure; availability of workers; and national science and technology system, highlighting the importance of medium and long-term investments.

Resumo O objetivo foi analisar, em perspectiva comparada, estratégias e ações políticas adotadas em resposta à pandemia de COVID-19 na Alemanha e na Espanha em 2020. Baseando-se no institucionalismo histórico, o foco foi a institucionalidade da atuação governamental em cinco dimensões de atuação. Os resultados evidenciaram diferentes capacidades estatais na coordenação, implementação e efetividade de estratégias. Pontos fortes da gestão e governança da crise estão relacionados ao reconhecimento da sua gravidade e capacidade de negociação; capacidade de produção nacional de insumos e equipamentos; e amplo direcionamento de recursos fiscais e financeiros do governo central para as áreas sanitária, social e econômica. Esses aspectos variaram entre os casos, atuando como diferencial relevante na resposta governamental. Outros diferenciais foram: estrutura do sistema de saúde; disponibilidade de trabalhadores; e sistema nacional de ciência e tecnologia, destacando a importância de investimentos de médio e longo prazo.

Abstract This study aimed to analyze comparatively strategies and political actions adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and Spain in 2020. Based on historical institutionalism, we focused on the institutionality of government action in five work dimensions. The results showed different state capacities in coordination, implementation, and effectiveness of strategies. Crisis management and governance strengths are related to recognizing its severity and negotiation skills; national production capacity of supplies and equipment; and broad targeting of fiscal and financial resources from central government to health, social, and economic areas. These aspects varied between cases, acting as a relevant differential in governmental response. Other differentials were health system’s structure; availability of workers; and national science and technology system, highlighting the importance of medium and long-term investments.

Objectives: To determine the factors that nursing professionals perceive as facilitating evidence-based clinical practice (EBCP) in the Balearic Islands Health Service (Spain) by identifying possible differences according to nurses' characteristics and their occupational settings. Methods: We performed a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study of 3,129 staff nurses in the Balearic Islands Health Service in 2009, who were surveyed using the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) and the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI). The strategy for the analysis encompassed an exploratory analysis, bivariate analysis with parametric and non-parametric tests according to the nature of the distributions (correlation, ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, chi square) and multivariate analysis of the main study variables and factors on the PES-NWI and EBPQ questionnaires. The analyses had a confidence level of 95%. Results: A total of 1,753 questionnaires were received, corresponding to a participation rate of 56.02%. The results established significant differences between the two questionnaires in the analysis of the hospital setting and primary care (p<0.001). These differences remained significant when the questionnaires were compared according to professional category and experience. Conclusions: This study compared nursing practice environments with different characteristics. Of the factors included in the questionnaires, that with the greatest influence on EBP was the support of nursing managers. This study also found that the two validated instruments are plausible tools for assessing EBCP and help to establish areas for improvement both at the individual and organizational level.

Objetivos: Establecer el diagnóstico de los factores que los profesionales de enfermería perciben como facilitadores para una práctica clínica basada en la evidencia (PCBE) en el Servicio de Salud de las Islas Baleares, identificando posibles diferencias en función de las características de los profesionales y de los entornos en que ejercen. Métodos: Estudio observacional transversal multicéntrico, tomando como población de estudio los 3129 profesionales de enfermería en plantilla del Servicio de Salud de las Islas Baleares en 2009, a quienes se encuestó con los instrumentos Evidence Based Practice Questionnarie: (EBPQ) y Nursing Work Index: (PES-NWI). La estrategia de análisis comprendió análisis exploratorio, análisis bivariado con pruebas paramétricas y no paramétricas en función de la naturaleza de las distribuciones (correlación, ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, ji cuadrado) y multivariado, entre las principales variables del estudio y los factores de los cuestionarios PES-NWI y EBPQ. Los análisis se realizaron con un nivel de confianza del 95%. Resultados: Se recibieron 1753 encuestas (participación del 56,02%). Los resultados de los dos cuestionarios muestran diferencias significativas al analizar el entorno hospitalario y de atención primaria (p<0,001). Estas diferencias se mantienen al comparar la categoría y la experiencia profesional. Conclusiones: El estudio compara entornos de práctica de enfermería de distintas características. De los factores que componen los cuestionarios, el que mayor influencia tiene sobre la PCBE es el apoyo de los gestores de enfermería. También establece que los dos instrumentos validados son herramientas plausibles para el diagnóstico de una PCBE que permiten establecer elementos de mejora, tanto individual como de organización.

Objectives: To determine the factors that nursing professionals perceive as facilitating evidence-based clinical practice (EBCP) in the Balearic Islands Health Service (Spain) by identifying possible differences according to nurses' characteristics and their occupational settings. Methods: We performed a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study of 3,129 staff nurses in the Balearic Islands Health Service in 2009, who were surveyed using the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) and the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI). The strategy for the analysis encompassed an exploratory analysis, bivariate analysis with parametric and non-parametric tests according to the nature of the distributions (correlation, ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, chi square) and multivariate analysis of the main study variables and factors on the PES-NWI and EBPQ questionnaires. The analyses had a confidence level of 95%. Results: A total of 1,753 questionnaires were received, corresponding to a participation rate of 56.02%. The results established significant differences between the two questionnaires in the analysis of the hospital setting and primary care (p<0.001). These differences remained significant when the questionnaires were compared according to professional category and experience. Conclusions: This study compared nursing practice environments with different characteristics. Of the factors included in the questionnaires, that with the greatest influence on EBP was the support of nursing managers. This study also found that the two validated instruments are plausible tools for assessing EBCP and help to establish areas for improvement both at the individual and organizational level.

Objetivos: Establecer el diagnóstico de los factores que los profesionales de enfermería perciben como facilitadores para una práctica clínica basada en la evidencia (PCBE) en el Servicio de Salud de las Islas Baleares, identificando posibles diferencias en función de las características de los profesionales y de los entornos en que ejercen. Métodos: Estudio observacional transversal multicéntrico, tomando como población de estudio los 3129 profesionales de enfermería en plantilla del Servicio de Salud de las Islas Baleares en 2009, a quienes se encuestó con los instrumentos Evidence Based Practice Questionnarie: (EBPQ) y Nursing Work Index: (PES-NWI). La estrategia de análisis comprendió análisis exploratorio, análisis bivariado con pruebas paramétricas y no paramétricas en función de la naturaleza de las distribuciones (correlación, ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, ji cuadrado) y multivariado, entre las principales variables del estudio y los factores de los cuestionarios PES-NWI y EBPQ. Los análisis se realizaron con un nivel de confianza del 95%. Resultados: Se recibieron 1753 encuestas (participación del 56,02%). Los resultados de los dos cuestionarios muestran diferencias significativas al analizar el entorno hospitalario y de atención primaria (p<0,001). Estas diferencias se mantienen al comparar la categoría y la experiencia profesional. Conclusiones: El estudio compara entornos de práctica de enfermería de distintas características. De los factores que componen los cuestionarios, el que mayor influencia tiene sobre la PCBE es el apoyo de los gestores de enfermería. También establece que los dos instrumentos validados son herramientas plausibles para el diagnóstico de una PCBE que permiten establecer elementos de mejora, tanto individual como de organización.

Background: The lack of adequate instruments prevents the possibility of assessing the competence of health care staff in evidence-based decision making and further, the identification of areas for improvement with tailored strategies. The aim of this study is to report about the validation process in the Spanish context of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) from Upton y Upton. Methods: A multicentre, cross-sectional, descriptive psychometric validation study was carried out. For cultural adaptation, a bidirectional translation was developed, accordingly to usual standards. The measuring model from the questionnaire was undergone to contrast, reproducing the original structure by Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA), including the reliability of factors. Results: Both EFA (57.545% of total variance explained) and CFA (chi²=2359,9555; gl=252; p < 0.0001; RMSEA=0,1844; SRMR=0,1081), detected problems with items 7, 16, 22, 23 and 24, regarding to the original trifactorial version of EBPQ. After deleting some questions, a reduced version containing 19 items obtained an adequate factorial structure (62.29% of total variance explained), but the CFA did not fit well. Nevertheless, it was significantly better than the original version (chi²=673.1261; gl=149; p < 0.0001; RMSEA=0.1196; SRMR=0.0648). Conclusions: The trifactorial model obtained good empiric evidence and could be used in our context, but the results invite to advance with further refinements into the factor "attitude", testing it in more contexts and with more diverse professional profiles.

Fundamento. La falta de instrumentos adecuados impide conocer la competencia de los profesionales en la toma de decisiones basadas en la evidencia e identificar áreas de mejora en las que intervenir con estrategias "ad hoc". El objetivo de la investigación es validar en el entorno español del Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) (Upton y Upton, 2006). Métodos. Se llevó a cabo un estudio multicéntrico, descriptivo y transversal de validación psicométrica. Se siguió un proceso de traducción-retrotraducción según los estándares habituales. Se contrastó el modelo de medida del cuestionario, replicando la estructura original anglosajona mediante análisis factorial exploratorio (AFE) y confirmatorio (AFC), incluyendo análisis de la fiabilidad de los factores. Resultados. Tanto el AFE (57,545% de la varianza total explicada) como el AFC (chi²=2359,9555; gl=252; p < 0,0001; RMSEA=0,1844; SRMR=0,1081) han detectado problemas en los ítems 7, 16, 22, 23 y 24 sobre la versión original trifactorial del EBPQ. Una versión reducida de 19 ítems presenta una estructura factorial exploratoria adecuada (62,29% de varianza total explicada), aunque el AFC no mostró adecuación, fue significativamente mejor que en la versión original (chi²=673.1261; gl=149; p < 0,0001; RMSEA=0,1196; SRMR=0,0648). Conclusiones: El modelo trifactorial (EBPQ-19) ha obtenido suficiente evidencia empírica para su sustentación y puede ser aplicado en nuestro medio, aunque los resultados invitan a refinar el factor "actitud", mediante el contraste en muestras en otros contextos y con mayor heterogeneidad de perfiles profesionales.

Background: The lack of adequate instruments prevents the possibility of assessing the competence of health care staff in evidence-based decision making and further, the identification of areas for improvement with tailored strategies. The aim of this study is to report about the validation process in the Spanish context of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) from Upton y Upton. Methods: A multicentre, cross-sectional, descriptive psychometric validation study was carried out. For cultural adaptation, a bidirectional translation was developed, accordingly to usual standards. The measuring model from the questionnaire was undergone to contrast, reproducing the original structure by Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA), including the reliability of factors. Results: Both EFA (57.545% of total variance explained) and CFA (chi²=2359,9555; gl=252; p < 0.0001; RMSEA=0,1844; SRMR=0,1081), detected problems with items 7, 16, 22, 23 and 24, regarding to the original trifactorial version of EBPQ. After deleting some questions, a reduced version containing 19 items obtained an adequate factorial structure (62.29% of total variance explained), but the CFA did not fit well. Nevertheless, it was significantly better than the original version (chi²=673.1261; gl=149; p < 0.0001; RMSEA=0.1196; SRMR=0.0648). Conclusions: The trifactorial model obtained good empiric evidence and could be used in our context, but the results invite to advance with further refinements into the factor "attitude", testing it in more contexts and with more diverse professional profiles.

Fundamento. La falta de instrumentos adecuados impide conocer la competencia de los profesionales en la toma de decisiones basadas en la evidencia e identificar áreas de mejora en las que intervenir con estrategias "ad hoc". El objetivo de la investigación es validar en el entorno español del Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) (Upton y Upton, 2006). Métodos. Se llevó a cabo un estudio multicéntrico, descriptivo y transversal de validación psicométrica. Se siguió un proceso de traducción-retrotraducción según los estándares habituales. Se contrastó el modelo de medida del cuestionario, replicando la estructura original anglosajona mediante análisis factorial exploratorio (AFE) y confirmatorio (AFC), incluyendo análisis de la fiabilidad de los factores. Resultados. Tanto el AFE (57,545% de la varianza total explicada) como el AFC (chi²=2359,9555; gl=252; p < 0,0001; RMSEA=0,1844; SRMR=0,1081) han detectado problemas en los ítems 7, 16, 22, 23 y 24 sobre la versión original trifactorial del EBPQ. Una versión reducida de 19 ítems presenta una estructura factorial exploratoria adecuada (62,29% de varianza total explicada), aunque el AFC no mostró adecuación, fue significativamente mejor que en la versión original (chi²=673.1261; gl=149; p < 0,0001; RMSEA=0,1196; SRMR=0,0648). Conclusiones: El modelo trifactorial (EBPQ-19) ha obtenido suficiente evidencia empírica para su sustentación y puede ser aplicado en nuestro medio, aunque los resultados invitan a refinar el factor "actitud", mediante el contraste en muestras en otros contextos y con mayor heterogeneidad de perfiles profesionales.