Abstract
Objective: To develop the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Follow-up Form for the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System.
Methods: Translation and cultural adaptation of the Follow-up Form for use in Brazil, in 6 steps: Translation, Expert Panel, Back-Translation, Pre-test, Review, and Final Version, according to the World Health Organization methodology.
Results: The 25 sections comprising the Follow-up Form were translated with 14 sections undergoing an adaptation process in one of the stages. In order to maximize semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence of the items from the original English version to Portuguese. The need for adaptation was due to four reasons: first, the format of paired and seemingly repetitive questions. Second, the difference in cultural reality, such as hygiene and consumption habits, between the United States and Brazil. Third, the use of technical terms, medical vocabulary. And fourth, sentences that contain many concepts related to the use of the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System. The sample included 127 Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System users, with an average age of 33.7 years, and 88.2% were married. The majority, 68 (53.5%), were not using any family planning method when they started Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System 49.2% were trying to conceive in the past year.
Conclusion: The translation of the Follow-up Form into Brazilian Portuguese resulted in a final version that maintained the intercultural and conceptual equivalence to the original English version. This instrument can be used by all practitioners in Brazil with the assurance that the standardization in the application of Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System reflects the original purpose of the method.
Keywords
Creighton Model System; Family planning; Cross-cultural comparison; Surveys and questionnaires
Introduction
The Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System (CrMS) is a Natural Fertility Appreciation Method developed in 1976 by gynecologist and obstetrician Dr. Thomas Hilgers, based on research conducted at St. Louis University and Creighton University.(1) This method is based on the observation and recording of vaginal discharge to identify the periods of fertility and infertility in a woman's menstrual cycle. The pattern of the discharge is recorded on a specific CrMS chart, allowing the woman to monitor her fertility and gynecological health.(2)
The method, when applied correctly, provides important information about the woman's health, with many details.(3) For example, whether the vaginal discharge is in a physiological or imbalanced pattern; whether ovulation is actually occurring; whether the hormonal production of the fertile cycle is adequate;(4) whether there is any type of abnormal bleeding during or outside the menstrual period; among others. Therefore, it allows the woman to track and monitor her fertility and gynecological health.(5–7)
By understanding the method, the couple becomes capable of deciding and choosing whether to use CrMS with the aim of achieving or delaying (avoiding) pregnancy.(8) If learned and applied correctly, it allows the woman to identify her ovulation with 95.4% accuracy within a range of approximately two days. It is a reliable method both for delaying and achieving pregnancy.(9–11)
The CrMS is based on the delivery of a standardized educational content to its educators, practitioners, physicians, and users, known as Natural Procreation Education, and it is the only cycle charting model with specific medical applications.(12,13) Standardization is possible thanks to the coordinated and integrated educational tools in the teaching system, some of which are:
-
The Picture Dictionary of the CREIGHTON MODEL FertilityCare™ System - presents the observation of mucus.(14)
-
The CREIGHTON MODEL System chart - user's worksheet.(2)
-
The Vaginal Discharge Recording System (VDRS) - standardizes the observation of vaginal discharge and allows the use of standardized terminology and recording system.(14)
-
The CREIGHTON MODEL System stamps - stickers used to make cycle information more visual.(9)
-
The CREIGHTON MODEL follow-up form (FUF) - standardizes teaching and knowledge transfer between practitioner and users, thus ensuring equal access to vital information for the appropriate use of the system.(2)
The user education system begins with an Introductory Session (IS), which can take place in a group or individual setting. This is the moment where the registration form is filled out. After the IS, there are 8 individual Follow-up (FU) between the practitioner and the user, over the course of a year. The first 4 FUs take place every 15 days, the fifth FU after 30 days, and the remaining ones every 3 months. After the eighth, a FU is suggested every 6 or 12 months.
In each of these FU, the practitioner applies a Follow-up Form (FUF) for each user and fills it out in printed form during each FU.(13) The FUF ensures that users have adequate and standardized access to information and instructions for recording their menstrual cycle in a chart.(2) The FUF consists of 25 sections distributed as follows: The face sheet, Completion of forms section, All medications, smoking, use of alcohol section, Comments section, and 21 additional numbered sections.
With each FU, filling out the 25 sections generates various pieces of information. These include demographic data, the user's health history, CrMS learning path, adherence, and intention of use of the method. The intention of use can be to achieve or delay a pregnancy or to monitor gynecological health. For this reason, it is essential that the content used in this form be clear, applicable, and effective in its function,(2) both for the practitioner and the user.
Each section of the FUF indicates in which FU it should be applied. Therefore, some sections are always applied, while others are applied in specific FU, such as the second and sixth, for example. There are also sections that are applied only once, in a single FU. Finally, some sections are only applied under specific health circumstances, that is, in certain clinical conditions of the user, such as section 12.
Therefore, during the 8 FUs, the user will systematically learn how to record observed discharge in the chart using the Picture Dictionary, the Vaginal Discharge Recording System, and the corresponding stickers. The user instruction protocol is extensive, and this educational system contributes to the effectiveness of the CrMS.(13)
Since its creation, the FUF has undergone changes to become an improved and effective educational tool, serving both the practitioner and the user of the CrMS.(2) Currently, it is in its fourth version, printed in 2019, in English. In addition to English, this material has been translated and adapted into several other languages, such as Hungarian, Italian, Spanish, Irish, European Portuguese, and French.(1) However, these were basic translations, not relying on solid methodology and without assessing the results of the final material's use. There are no published studies related to its translation or cultural adaptation.
In Brazil, the material is still translated from English by the practitioner during the FU, highlighting the need for a more accurate cultural translation and adaptation to ensure the understanding and standardization of the method across the country.
This study proposes the translation and cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese of the Follow-up Form (FUF) of the Creighton Model FertilityCareTM System (CrMS). The goal is to enhance the comprehension and application of the method within the Brazilian context, ensuring that all users have access to clear and standardized information.
Methods
This was a methodological study focused on the translation and cultural adaptation of the Follow-up Form (FUF) from the Creighton Model FertilityCareTM System (CrMS) for use in Brazilian Portuguese. The volunteers who agreed to participate in the study signed the Free and Informed Consent Form in a virtual format.
The process of translating and culturally adapting the FUF for use in Brazil was carried out with the author's permission, following the methodology proposed by the World Health Organization.(15) This methodology consists of six steps: Translation, Expert Panel, Back Translation, Pre-testing, Review, and Final Version. Its goal is to achieve a cross-cultural and conceptually equivalent version to the original English version.(15)
The first phase was the translation of the original version into Portuguese by a translator familiar with the English language but whose native language is Portuguese. In this step, the focus was on the conceptual rather than literal translation of terms to facilitate understanding by the audience. The version created in this stage was called FUF 1.0.
Immediately after the initial translation, the first review was conducted with a panel of experts. This panel was composed of the translator from the first stage, one physician and two practitioners trained in CrMS and certified by the American Academy of FertilityCare(16) Professionals, with one of them holding a bachelor's degree, a teaching degree, and a master's in applied linguistics. In this phase, the 25 sections of the FUF were read by the panel of experts, and each sentence was reviewed to check for any inappropriate expressions or concepts in the translation, as well as any discrepancies between the direct translation and the existing previous version, resulting in the FUF 1.1 version.
The FUF 1.1 version was submitted to back translation, back into the original language (English), by an independent translator whose native language is English and who had no knowledge of the FUF, producing the version called FUF 1.2. In this version, the discrepancies were discussed by the expert panel, resulting in the appropriate version, FUF 1.3.
This latest questionnaire, FUF 1.3, was administered as a pre-test instrument, at least 20 times in each section, to users of the CrMS. The suggestions made during the pre-test phase were analyzed and allowed for the construction of the final version, FUF 1.4. In all phases, a numbering system was developed to track the different versions of the translated documents and to mark revisions of the changes made by the team.
This study complied with all the criteria established by Resolution No. 466/2012 of the National Health Council and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), Certificado de Apresentação de Apreciação Ética (CAAE) 65759122.9.0000.5505, opinion N° 6.062.414.
Results
The initial version of FUF 1.0, after translation and review by the panel of experts, had 11 out of the 25 sections considered equivalent, and 14 sections were discussed to resolve discrepancies. These 14 sections are as follows: The face sheet, Completion of forms section, All medications, smoking, use of alcohol section, and sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 20. The discrepancies were resolved by consensus, considering the theoretical framework and the Brazilian context, resulting in version FUF 1.1. This version was subjected to back-translation, producing FUF 1.2, which showed high equivalence with the original FUF. The back-translation focused on conceptual and cultural equivalence, making a new translation unnecessary. The contributions and changes throughout the process, from the initial translation to version FUF 1.4, are detailed in chart 1.
Follow-up Form sections that were adapted during the translation and cultural adaptation process
Version FUF 1.3 was applied as a pre-test instrument to the target population. Three Brazilian practitioner trained by CrMS and certified by the American Academy of FertilityCare Professionals, who were not part of the expert panel, applied FUF 1.3 during FU. This was conducted in a private network with users who agreed to participate in the study and signed the informed consent form (ICF). Between July and December 2023, 144 users were approached for the application of FUF 1.3, of whom 127 were included in the analysis (Figure 1).
The average age of the users was 33.7 years, ranging from 20 to 46 years, and 112 (88.2%) were married (Table 1). Among the 127 users served, 126 resided in Brazil and 1 in England. Regarding the distribution across the national territory, 15 different Brazilian states and the Federal District were represented, with 74 (58.3%) of the CrMS users residing in São Paulo. The states represented with the respective number of users were: Espírito Santo 1 (0,8%), Mato Grosso 1 (0,8%), Pernambuco 1 (0,8%), Rondônia 1 (8,0%), Santa Catarina 1 (0,8%), Distrito Federal 2 (1,6%), Mato Grosso do Sul 2 (1,6%), Pará 2 (1,6%), Paraíba 3 (2,4%), Ceará 4 (3,1%), Rio Grande do Sul 4 (3,1%), Paraná 6 (4,7%), Goiás 7 (5,5%), Rio de Janeiro 8 (6,3%), Minas Gerais 9 (7,1%).
As soon as each user starts using the CrMS, she is classified according to her initial reproductive category, which guides the teaching process and the selection of some specific FU subsections of the FUF. This information is relevant because it determines the necessary educational information, such as that in section 12, making the CrMS personalized for each user. The category can change over time and is documented in the FUF.
Table 1 shows the classification of the initial reproductive category of the 127 users. The infertility category includes women who have not become pregnant in the past 12 months’ despite having regular sexual intercourse without using contraceptive methods. The regular cycles category includes women whose predominant cycle pattern ranges from 21 to 38 days. The long cycles category refers to women with a predominant cycle pattern longer than 38 days. The pre-menopause category includes women aged 40 and over who do not wish to become pregnant. The post-pill category consists of women who have chosen to discontinue the use of hormonal methods in the past year. The information reported about the last family planning method used before starting CrMS is described in table 1.
Each CrMS user went through the educational system with an introductory section followed by 8 FU with their practitioner, which occur systematically over the course of a year and then every 6 or 12 months. During the study period, the number of FUs that users had varied as follows: most users had 1 FU, followed by 2 FUs, 5 FUs, 3 FUs, 6 FUs, and 4 FUs, respectively (Table 2). Regarding the sequence of FUs, a large portion of users, 76 (59.84%), were between the first and fifth FUs, 23 (18.11%) were between the sixth and eighth FUs, and 28 (22.05%) users had already surpassed the basic teaching program after the eighth FU, with 2 of them having reached the fourteenth FU.
During the data collection period of the study, it was possible to determine which sections of the FUF were applied in each FU, highlighting the number of times each section of the FUF was applied. Some sections, used in every FU, were applied 330 times. This calculation is possible due to information on the number of users followed and the consideration of which sections of the FUF are applied in each FU. Users who advance further in the process are subjected to the same sections of the form more than once, which is why there is an exponential increase in the number of applications. Among the 25 sections, there are 8 (Completion of forms, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 20) where some items, or the entire section, are never applied or read directly to the users, as they are filled out solely by the practitioner during the FUs. These eight sections were evaluated by the three practitioners during the pre-test phase at each FU. Of these, only two were discussed and adapted (Figure 2), as detailed in chart 1. Thus, out of the 25 sections, 17 are applied directly to the users. The users provided feedback on the overall interpretation of the instrument and on each item. Of these 17 sections, only 7 (Completion of forms, all medication, smoking, use of alcohol section, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12) required additional explanations or interventions by the practitioner (Figure 2), as per chart 1. The suggestions obtained in the pre-test were analyzed and incorporated into the final version, FUF 1.4. Chart 1 details the changes and contributions throughout the adaptation process.
Adaptations made by the panel of experts resulted in version FUF 1.1. Adaptations made by users and practitioners when applied as a pre-test instrument generated version FUF 1.3 which has resulted in the final version FUF 1.4
Discussion
The research conducted brought significant benefits to the national context, given the impact of CrMS on monitoring fertility and women's gynecological health. The adaptation of educational tools to the local language and culture is crucial for effective learning. This study, pioneering in Brazil and worldwide, stands out for adopting standardized translation and cultural adaptation methodologies, a significant advancement compared to previous translations, which were done in a free manner without established academic translation and back-translation(15) methodologies.
The FUF is the teaching tool for practitioners and the learning tool for users, which ensures a standardized form of learning and application of CrMS. This standardization contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency of CrMS. Therefore, it is crucial for it to be well understood and applied by both practitioners and users.
This work follows the WHO guidelines on the translation and adaptation of instruments. According to these guidelines, the minimum number of times each section of the questionnaire to be translated and adapted must be applied is 10.(15) Meanwhile, the guidelines proposed by Beaton et al.(17) suggest 30 to 40 times. The participation of 127 women in the study allowed for 84% of the sections of the FUF to be applied at least 20 times. Some of these 25 sections were applied up to 330 times. This is an adequate sampling to assess the quality of the translation and cultural adaptation. Some subsections of sections 12, 17, 19, and the entirety of section 21 were applied less than 20 times, and subsections of sections 12 and 19 were applied less than 10 times due to the specificity of clinical conditions. However, all sections were reviewed by the practitioners and evaluated by the expert panel. Subsection J of section 12 is normally not used in Brazil but was included in the study to ensure a complete adaptation of the FUF.
It is important to highlight that the users participated in the study voluntarily and were already familiar with CrMS.
As previously presented, during the first phase of translation into Portuguese, FUF 1.0, and the discussion of this version among the expert panel, adaptations were necessary (Chart 1). Since the translator could not have prior knowledge of the CrMS or the form she was translating3, some translations were done literally, while others were interpreted by her, as in Section 11, Item B, Subitem 9: "progressão de muco ou dia ápice" was translated as "aumento da fertilidade ou dia fértil". A few needed adjustments in verb tense, pronouns, and articles to make sense within the context of teaching and learning the CrMS. Therefore, the expert panel, familiar with the concepts, words, and expressions already used by the CrMS, made the necessary adaptations, resulting in the FUF 1.1 version.
This version was back-translated by another translator, who also had no prior knowledge of the CrMS, resulting in the FUF 1.2 version. Most of the form in this version remained the same or very close to the original English version, confirming that the translation process followed a reliable path concerning the words and concepts used. Only a few sections of this version, FUF 1.2, were discussed again by the expert panel during the construction of the FUF 1.3 version, which was applied to the pre-test population (Chart 1).
The FUF 1.3 version was administered to the pre-test population by three certified practitioners who had not participated in the expert panel. As previously mentioned, there are eight sections in which some items or the entire section are never applied or directly read to the users, as they are completed only by the CrMS practitioner during the FU. Even though they were not directly asked to the users, the practitioners read these sections multiple times,(9) and two of them underwent adaptations (Chart 1).
During the application of FUF 1.3, some sections generated questions. The difficulty in understanding the questions was primarily due to four factors:
The first factor was the format of paired and seemingly repetitive questions, which some sections intentionally include to ensure that the CrMS user is indeed understanding and assimilating the concepts necessary to maintain the observation routine and use the method correctly.
The second factor was the difference in cultural realities, hygiene habits, and consumption practices between the United States and Brazil. We understand that these items in the FUF, even though they are not contextualized within the Brazilian cultural reality, should be maintained due to the universality of the method and the internationalization of its users, who may live outside Brazil and encounter scenarios such as colored toilet paper or dryer sheets, for example.
The third factor contributing to users’ difficulty in comprehension was the use of technical terms, such as medical vocabulary like ‘perineum’ and ‘anovulatory.’ These terms were explained and retained, as once understood, the users no longer had any doubts.
The fourth factor was related to sentences that present many concepts related to CrMS use and, therefore, need to be spoken and explained slowly, so that users can review, understand the concept being discussed, and comprehend it correctly.
The necessary adaptations were made after discussions between the expert panel and the practitioners who applied version FUF 1.3 to the pre-test population, resulting in the final version, FUF 1.4.
The slightly higher average age, 33.7 years, and the large percentage of married users, 88.2%, may be related to the fact that 56.7% of users were not using any family planning method when they began learning CrMS. Nearly half of them, 49.2%, had been trying to conceive in the past year.(18,19)
Although 15 Brazilian states and the Federal District were represented by the users, 58.3% of them resided in the State of São Paulo. The three practitioners who applied FUF version 1.3 to the pre-test population also reside in São Paulo. Despite the FUs being online and standardized across the country, the practitioner's location may have influenced the users’ choice.
The teaching system includes 8 FUs over the course of one year, following a standardized sequence of intervals between them, and then every 6 months or annually thereafter. Since the FUF was administered to the pre-test population over a period of 6 months, the maximum number of Follow-up appointments possible for the same user during this study period was 6, provided that the user started the CrMS as soon as she joined the study and followed the recommended intervals between appointments. Therefore, a small number of participants in the study, 38 (29.9%), had between 4 to 6 FUs during this period. However, it is noteworthy that during this study period, it was possible to include both users in the initial learning phase—76 (59.84%) were between the first and fifth FU—and those in the advanced phase—28 (22.05%) users who had already completed the basic teaching program of the CrMS after the eighth appointment.
The standardized way in which the FUF is applied, with the practitioner asking questions directly to the user and her responding immediately, makes it clear whether the question was understood and what difficulties were encountered. Each section is applied to the same client at least twice, most often four times, with intervals between applications varying from 15, 30, 90, to 180 days. This means that users go through the same section multiple times within a short period at the beginning of their learning and later over a longer period, allowing us to suggest a high level of reliability in the translated and applied version of the FUF.
The Brazilian version of the FUF was developed and applied to CrMS users. Understanding the users’ interpretation of each question and making adjustments was essential to identifying issues and enabling question adjustments, thereby improving comprehension and ensuring that the concepts of the original English version were preserved.
A limitation of the study was the inclusion of new users after the data collection period had ended, which prevented their full participation in the study.
Conclusion
The Follow-up Form for the Creighton Model FertilityCareTM System was culturally adapted for use in Brazil, maintaining intercultural and conceptual equivalence, functioning similarly to the original English version. Thus, the objective of using the WHO's proposal for the translation and cultural adaptation of forms was achieved and confirmed according to the expert committee's evaluation. Therefore, this form can be used by all practitioners in Brazil, with equivalence to the original English version, ensuring that the standardization in the application of the CrMS is maintained throughout the country. This means that there will be an official translation, eliminating the need for each practitioner to translate their material during each appointment, as is currently the case.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the voluntary participants of the Creighton Model FertilityCareTM System users and the dedicated practitioners whose contributions were essential to the development of this research.
References
- 1 Tham E, Schliep K, Stanford J. Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice. Can Fam Physician. 2012;58(5):e267-74.
- 2 Hilgers TW, Daly D, Hilgers S, Prebil AM. The Creighton Model Fertilitycare System: a standardized case management approach to teaching. 2nd ed. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2002. Book 1: Basic Teaching Skills.
-
3 Ibeziako OJ. Natural family planning, an option in reproductive healthcare: a qualitative study on clinicians’ perceptions. Linacre Q. 2022;89(3):298-318. doi: 10.1177/00243639221078070
» https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639221078070 -
4 Smith AD, Smith JL. billings Mentor: adapting natural family planning to information technology and relieving the user of unnecessary tasks. Linacre Q. 2014;81(3):219-38. doi: 10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000024
» https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000024 -
5 Howard MP, Stanford JB. Pregnancy probabilities during use of the Creighton Model Fertility Care System. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8(5):391-402. doi: 10.1001/archfami.8.5.391
» https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.8.5.391 -
6 Stanford JB, Smith KR, Dunson DB. Vulvar mucus observations and the probability of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(6):1285-93. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00358-2
» https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00358-2 -
7 World Health Organization. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. II. The effectiveness phase. Fertil Steril. 1981;36(5):591-8. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)45856-5
» https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)45856-5 -
8 Stanford JB, Smith KR, Varner MW. Impact of instruction in the Creighton Model Fertility Care System on time to pregnancy in couples of proven fecundity: results of a randomised trial. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28(5):391-9. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12141
» https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12141 - 9 Hilgers TW. The medical & surgical practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2004.
-
10 Lora JM, Martínez OM, Simoni J, Calvo MM, Andrés AF, Mejía JE, et al. Fertile window and biophysical biomarkers of cervical secretion in subfertile cycles: a look at biotechnology applied to NaProTechnology. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2022;49(1):1-9. doi: 10.31083/j.ceog4901017
» https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4901017 - 11 Hilgers TW, Abraham FG, Cavanagh D. Natural family planning I. The peak symptom and estimated time of ovulation. Obstet Gynecol. 1978;52(5):575-82.
-
12 Fehring RJ, Lawrence D, Philpot C. Use effectiveness of the Creighton model ovulation method of natural family planning. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1994;23(4):303-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01881.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01881.x -
13 Stanford JB, Smith KR. Characteristics of women associated with continuing instruction in the Creighton Model Fertility Care System. Contraception. 2000;61(2):121-9. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(00)00084-6
» https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-7824(00)00084-6 - 14 Hilgers TW, Stanford JB. Creighton Model NaProEducation Technology for avoiding pregnancy. Use effectiveness. J Reprod Med. 1998;43(6):495-502.
- 15 World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on translation: process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Geneva: WHO; 2007.
-
16 Barron ML, Daly KD. Expert in fertility appreciation: the Creighton Model practitioner. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2001;30(4):386-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2001.tb01557.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2001.tb01557.x -
17 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
» https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 -
18 Bigelow JL, Dunson DB, Stanford JB, Ecochard R, Gnoth C, Colombo B. Mucus observations in the fertile window: a better predictor of conception than timing of intercourse. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(4):889-92. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh173
» https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh173 -
19 Bertotti AM, Christensen SM. Comparing current, former, and never users of natural family planning an analysis of demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal variables. Linacre Q. 2012;79(4):474-86. doi: 10.1179/002436312804827154
» https://doi.org/10.1179/002436312804827154
Edited by
-
Associate Editor
Ilza Maria Urbano Monteiro (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9536-0564) Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
04 Aug 2025 -
Date of issue
2025
History
-
Received
02 Oct 2024 -
Accepted
07 Apr 2025




