14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A promising method for identifying cross-cultural differences in patient perspective: the use of Internet-based focus groups for content validation of new Patient Reported Outcome assessments

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          This proof of concept (POC) study was designed to evaluate the use of an Internet-based bulletin board technology to aid parallel cross-cultural development of thematic content for a new set of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs).

          Methods

          The POC study, conducted in Germany and the United States, utilized Internet Focus Groups (IFGs) to assure the validity of new PRO items across the two cultures – all items were designed to assess the impact of excess facial oil on individuals' lives. The on-line IFG activities were modeled after traditional face-to-face focus groups and organized by a common 'Topic' Guide designed with input from thought leaders in dermatology and health outcomes research. The two sets of IFGs were professionally moderated in the native language of each country. IFG moderators coded the thematic content of transcripts, and a frequency analysis of code endorsement was used to identify areas of content similarity and difference between the two countries. Based on this information, draft PRO items were designed and a majority (80%) of the original participants returned to rate the relative importance of the newly designed questions.

          Findings

          The use of parallel cross-cultural content analysis of IFG transcripts permitted identification of the major content themes in each country as well as exploration of the possible reasons for any observed differences between the countries. Results from coded frequency counts and transcript reviews informed the design and wording of the test questions for the future PRO instrument(s). Subsequent ratings of item importance also deepened our understanding of potential areas of cross-cultural difference, differences that would be explored over the course of future validation studies involving these PROs.

          Conclusion

          The use of IFGs for cross-cultural content development received positive reviews from participants and was found to be both cost and time effective. The novel thematic coding methodology provided an empirical platform on which to develop culturally sensitive questionnaire content using the natural language of participants. Overall, the IFG responses and thematic analyses provided a thorough evaluation of similarities and differences in cross-cultural themes, which in turn acted as a sound base for the development of new PRO questionnaires.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments with Hispanics.

          This article has two objectives. The first is to provide a culturally sensitive perspective to treatment outcome research as a resource to augment the ecological validity of treatment research. The relationships between external validity, ecological validity, and culturally sensitive research are reviewed. The second objective is to present a preliminary framework for culturally sensitive interventions that strengthen ecological validity for treatment outcome research. The framework, consisting of eight dimensions of treatment interventions (language, persons, metaphors, content, concepts, goals, methods, and context) can serve as a guide for developing culturally sensitive treatments and adapting existing psychosocial treatments to specific ethnic minority groups. Examples of culturally sensitive elements for each dimension of the intervention are offered. Although the focus of the article is on Hispanic populations, the framework may be valuable to other ethnic and minority groups.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment.

            This article describes the methods adopted by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project to translate the SF-36 Health Survey. Translation methods included the production of forward and backward translations, use of difficulty and quality ratings, pilot testing, and cross-cultural comparison of the translation work. Experience to date suggests that the SF-36 can be adapted for use in other countries with relatively minor changes to the content of the form, providing support for the use of these translations in multinational clinical trials and other studies. The most difficult items to translate were physical functioning items, which used examples of activities and distances that are not common outside of the United States; items that used colloquial expressions such as pep or blue; and the social functioning items. Quality ratings were uniformly high across countries. While the IQOLA approach to translation and validation was developed for use with the SF-36, it is applicable to other translation efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research.

              Cross-cultural research often involves physicians, nurses, and other health care providers. In studies of fecal and urinary incontinence, cross-cultural research has been applied to quality-of-life comparisons, and instruments have been translated to foreign languages for use in other countries. This report presents some of the principal methodological issues and problems associated with translating questionnaires for use in cross-cultural research in a manner relevant to clinicians and health care practitioners who are aware that, unless these potential problems are addressed, the results of their research may be suspect. Translation is the most common method of preparing instruments for cross-cultural research and has pitfalls that threaten validity. Some of these problems are difficult to detect and may have a detrimental effect on the study results. Identification and correction of problems can enhance research quality and validity. A method for translation and validation is presented in detail. However, the specific validation method adopted is less important than the recognition that the translation process must be appropriate and the validation process rigorous.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Qual Life Outcomes
                Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
                BioMed Central (London )
                1477-7525
                2006
                22 September 2006
                : 4
                : 64
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Worldwide Health Outcomes Research, La Jolla Laboratories, Pfizer Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA
                [2 ]Health Services Research Center, USCD School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
                [3 ]Lohs Research Group, Qualitative Marketing Research, 2170 West Freeman Road, Palatine, IL 60067, USA
                [4 ]IKM International Qualitative Marketing Research, Ludwig-Ganghoferstr. 33, D-85551 Kirchheim/München, Germany
                [5 ]Kaufman Associates, 6 Fennwood Drive, Atherton, CA 94027, USA
                [6 ]President and Chief Technical Officer, FocusForums™, Calgary, Alberta T3K 6J1, Canada
                Article
                1477-7525-4-64
                10.1186/1477-7525-4-64
                1630423
                16995935
                c9a8e50e-cac4-42a7-91dc-804ea56d91f3
                Copyright © 2006 Atkinson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 June 2006
                : 22 September 2006
                Categories
                Research

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article