Cross-cultural validation of self-reported measurement instruments for research is a long and complex process, which involves specific risks of bias that could affect the research process and results. Furthermore, it requires researchers to have a wide range of technical knowledge about the translation, adaptation and pre-test aspects, their purposes and options, about the different psychometric properties, and the required evidence for their assessment and knowledge about the quantitative data processing and analysis using statistical software. This article aimed: 1) identify all guidelines and recommendations for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation within the healthcare sciences; 2) describe the methodological approaches established in these guidelines for conducting translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation; and 3) provide a practical guideline featuring various methodological options for novice researchers involved in translating, adapting, and validating measurement instruments. Forty-two guidelines on translation, adaptation, or cross-cultural validation of measurement instruments were obtained from “CINAHL with Full Text” (via EBSCO) and “MEDLINE with Full Text”. A content analysis was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the methodological approaches recommended. Bases on these similarities and differences, we proposed an eight-step guideline that includes: a) forward translation; 2) synthesis of translations; 3) back translation; 4) harmonization; 5) pre-testing; 6) field testing; 7) psychometric validation, and 8) analysis of psychometric properties. It is a practical guideline because it provides extensive and comprehensive information on the methodological approaches available to researchers. This is the first methodological literature review carried out in the healthcare sciences regarding the methodological approaches recommended by existing guidelines.

Background: The delivery of quality, safe, and patient-centered care is foundational for professional practice. The primary nursing model allows nurses to have excellent knowledge about patients and families and to plan and coordinate care from admission to discharge, with better management of health situations. Nurses play a crucial role in improving patients’ outcomes, namely those sensitive to nursing care. The knowledge of the relationship between the primary nursing model and the nursing-sensitive outcomes provides new scientific evidence that strengthens the relevance of this nursing care organization model in the inpatients’ health outcomes. This systematic review describes the relationship between nurse-sensitive inpatients’ outcomes and the primary nursing care model. Methods: A systematic review was conducted with a narrative synthesis, and the following databases were searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Nursing & Allied Health Collection, SciELO Collections, and Cochrane. Results: A total of 22 full texts were assessed, of which five were included in the study according to the selection criteria. The analysis results indicated that the primary nursing care model was related to nursing-sensitive patient safety outcomes. Patients’ experience was also considered a nursing-sensitive outcome, namely in the satisfaction with nursing care. Conclusion: The negative outcomes are clearly related to the primary nursing care model. There is scarce research that relates primary nursing to positive outcomes, such as patients’ functional status and self-care abilities, and more studies are needed.

Background: Leadership is present at all levels of nursing and is essential to ensure the continuous improvement of nursing practice environments and the quality of the care provided to patients. This reality, coupled with the growing complexity of today’s health contexts, emphasises the importance of promoting the development of leadership skills in undergraduate nursing students, thus training nurses who are capable of acting as leaders and agents of change. To this end, a scoping review was carried out to map the available scientific evidence on the development of leadership in undergraduate nursing students. Methods: The scoping review was conducted according to two systematic review guidelines. The searches were conducted across a total of five databases for published studies and two databases for the unpublished/grey literature. The data extraction and analysis were performed by two reviewers, who independently screened and extracted data from the selected studies. Results: This review included 25 articles, and four thematic categories were identified—students’ perceptions of leadership; strategies to train leaders in nursing; the evaluation of leadership development; and conceptual models and curricula. The main conclusions highlight the need to reformulate existing curricula, the importance of integrating student-centred pedagogical approaches to promote leadership development, the impact that evaluating leadership development has on the whole process, contributing to the construction of an identity as a leader, and the need for it to be done in a structured and progressive way. Conclusions: The teaching of leadership should be promoted from the beginning of training, in a transversal, continuous, consistent, sustained, and articulated way, incorporating different disciplines, because only in this way will it be possible to train competent nurse leaders who are capable of acting in today’s complex and dynamic health contexts.

Objective: To examine the scientific evidence about the nursing practice environment in Primary Health Care. Methods: Three-step scoping review. 1) An initial research on CINAHL and MEDLINE. 2) A broader search using the same keywords and search terms in the remaining EBSCOHost platform databases. 3) Search the bibliographical references of the selected articles. The studies selected were from 2007 to 2018. Results: 19 articles were included, most reported findings of the nursing practice environment and results for clients, nurses, nurse managers and the efficiency of organizations, in Primary Health Care. Conclusion: Improving the environment of nursing practice has consequences on the quality of nursing care, with increased results for clients, nursing and Primary Health Care.