Back

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese Charite Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (CAFQa) among ICU nurses and physicians: a multicenter study

Sato, T.; Ishiseki, M.; Kataoka, Y.; Someko, H.; Sato, H.; Minami, K.; Kaneko, T.; Takeda, H.; Crosby, A.

2026-04-11 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.04.07.26350292 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesAlarm fatigue is a patient safety concern in ICUs, yet no validated instrument exists to assess alarm fatigue among healthcare professionals in non-Western settings. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the Charite Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (CAFQa) into Japanese and evaluate its reliability and validity among ICU nurses and physicians. MethodsThe Japanese CAFQa was cross-culturally adapted following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, including forward translation, back-translation, expert panel review, and cognitive interviews. A multicenter cross-sectional validation study was performed across eight ICUs at five hospitals in Japan. A total of 129 participants (103 nurses and 26 physicians) completed the Japanese CAFQa, the NIOSH Brief Job Stress Questionnaire, and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability (n = 102), convergent validity, and known-groups validity were assessed. ResultsCFA confirmed the two-factor structure with acceptable fit (CFI = 0.922, RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.076), with standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.33 to 0.82. The two factors were not correlated (r = 0.05). Cronbachs alpha was 0.688 for the overall scale, 0.805 for Alarm Stress, and 0.649 for Alarm Coping. Test-retest ICCs ranged from 0.616 to 0.753. The CAFQa total score correlated with the NIOSH total (r = 0.261) and the ISI total (r = 0.338). Healthcare professionals with [≥]4 years of ICU experience had higher Alarm Coping scores than those with 1-3 years (median 7.0 vs 6.5), and physicians scored higher on Alarm Coping than nurses (median 8.0 vs 7.0). ConclusionsThe Japanese CAFQa demonstrated acceptable structural validity, reliability, and convergent and known-groups validity, providing the first validated tool for quantitatively measuring alarm fatigue in Japan. Implications for Clinical PracticeThe Japanese CAFQa enables ICU managers to quantify alarm fatigue at individual and unit levels, identify high-risk staff, and evaluate the effectiveness of alarm management interventions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
19.9%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
19.1%
3
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
6
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
7
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
9
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
10
Journal of Neurotrauma
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
11
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
12
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
13
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
14
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
16
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
21
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
24
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
26
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
28
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
29
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%