英语PEDS工具在低收入社区的文化和语言适用性:一个照顾者的视角

IF 0.2 Q4 PEDIATRICS
M Botes, D W Swanepoel, M Graham, J Van der Linde
{"title":"英语PEDS工具在低收入社区的文化和语言适用性:一个照顾者的视角","authors":"M Botes, D W Swanepoel, M Graham, J Van der Linde","doi":"10.7196/sajch.2023.v17i3.2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Regular developmental surveillance using structured developmental screening tools is a proven way to effectively identify developmental delays and disabilities. Most screening tools are developed and standardised in high-income countries and then adapted and translated for low-and middle-income countries. However, cultural differences and viewpoints make it challenging to translate and adapt developmental screening tools for low-income communities.Objectives. To determine caregivers’ perspectives on linguistic and cultural appropriateness of the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and the PEDS: Developmental Milestones (DM) as a first step in the adaptation process for low-income communities in South Africa.Method. Participants (N=102) were selected using convenience sampling at an immunisation clinic. We employed a survey researchdesign. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative survey feedback survey was analysed using data-driven inductive methodology.Results. On the PEDS questionnaire, 38.2% of participants indicated the term ‘development’ on question 1 was not suitable; and 51%preferred the phrase ‘sometimes worry’ more than the phrase ‘have any concerns’ for questions 2 - 9. On the PEDS:DM, 58 of the 124questions were deemed difficult. Most questions were problematic owing to cultural or linguistic differences (49 questions), while 9questions were too difficult for the child’s age. The expressive language developmental domain had the most challenges.Conclusion. The present study relied on robust community participation, enabling community-led adaptation of the PEDS tools. Items on the tools were viewed solely from a community perspective, empowering the community to be ‘experts’ in this process, ensuring greater contextual relevance and applicability of the tools, as well as generalisability to similar low-income communities.","PeriodicalId":44732,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Child Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural and linguistic applicability of the English PEDS tools in a low-income community: A caregiver perspective\",\"authors\":\"M Botes, D W Swanepoel, M Graham, J Van der Linde\",\"doi\":\"10.7196/sajch.2023.v17i3.2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Regular developmental surveillance using structured developmental screening tools is a proven way to effectively identify developmental delays and disabilities. Most screening tools are developed and standardised in high-income countries and then adapted and translated for low-and middle-income countries. However, cultural differences and viewpoints make it challenging to translate and adapt developmental screening tools for low-income communities.Objectives. To determine caregivers’ perspectives on linguistic and cultural appropriateness of the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and the PEDS: Developmental Milestones (DM) as a first step in the adaptation process for low-income communities in South Africa.Method. Participants (N=102) were selected using convenience sampling at an immunisation clinic. We employed a survey researchdesign. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative survey feedback survey was analysed using data-driven inductive methodology.Results. On the PEDS questionnaire, 38.2% of participants indicated the term ‘development’ on question 1 was not suitable; and 51%preferred the phrase ‘sometimes worry’ more than the phrase ‘have any concerns’ for questions 2 - 9. On the PEDS:DM, 58 of the 124questions were deemed difficult. Most questions were problematic owing to cultural or linguistic differences (49 questions), while 9questions were too difficult for the child’s age. The expressive language developmental domain had the most challenges.Conclusion. The present study relied on robust community participation, enabling community-led adaptation of the PEDS tools. Items on the tools were viewed solely from a community perspective, empowering the community to be ‘experts’ in this process, ensuring greater contextual relevance and applicability of the tools, as well as generalisability to similar low-income communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Child Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Child Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajch.2023.v17i3.2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Child Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajch.2023.v17i3.2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。使用结构化发育筛查工具进行定期发育监测是有效识别发育迟缓和残疾的一种行之有效的方法。大多数筛查工具是在高收入国家开发和标准化的,然后针对低收入和中等收入国家进行调整和转化。然而,文化差异和观点使得对低收入社区的发展筛查工具进行翻译和调整具有挑战性。确定照顾者对父母发展状况评估(PEDS)和PEDS:发展里程碑(DM)的语言和文化适宜性的看法,作为南非低收入社区适应过程的第一步。参与者(N=102)采用便利抽样在免疫诊所选择。我们采用了调查研究设计。定量资料采用描述性统计分析,定性调查反馈调查采用数据驱动归纳法分析。在“个人发展计划”问卷上,38.2%的受访者认为问题1中的“发展”一词不合适;在第2 - 9题中,51%的人更喜欢“有时担心”这个短语,而不是“有任何担忧”。在PEDS:DM测试中,124道题中有58道被认为很难。由于文化或语言差异,大多数问题都有问题(49个问题),而9个问题对于孩子的年龄来说太难了。表达性语言发展领域面临的挑战最大。目前的研究依赖于强大的社区参与,使社区主导的PEDS工具适应。这些工具上的项目完全从社区的角度来看待,使社区在这一过程中成为“专家”,确保这些工具具有更大的背景相关性和适用性,并可推广到类似的低收入社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cultural and linguistic applicability of the English PEDS tools in a low-income community: A caregiver perspective
Background. Regular developmental surveillance using structured developmental screening tools is a proven way to effectively identify developmental delays and disabilities. Most screening tools are developed and standardised in high-income countries and then adapted and translated for low-and middle-income countries. However, cultural differences and viewpoints make it challenging to translate and adapt developmental screening tools for low-income communities.Objectives. To determine caregivers’ perspectives on linguistic and cultural appropriateness of the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and the PEDS: Developmental Milestones (DM) as a first step in the adaptation process for low-income communities in South Africa.Method. Participants (N=102) were selected using convenience sampling at an immunisation clinic. We employed a survey researchdesign. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative survey feedback survey was analysed using data-driven inductive methodology.Results. On the PEDS questionnaire, 38.2% of participants indicated the term ‘development’ on question 1 was not suitable; and 51%preferred the phrase ‘sometimes worry’ more than the phrase ‘have any concerns’ for questions 2 - 9. On the PEDS:DM, 58 of the 124questions were deemed difficult. Most questions were problematic owing to cultural or linguistic differences (49 questions), while 9questions were too difficult for the child’s age. The expressive language developmental domain had the most challenges.Conclusion. The present study relied on robust community participation, enabling community-led adaptation of the PEDS tools. Items on the tools were viewed solely from a community perspective, empowering the community to be ‘experts’ in this process, ensuring greater contextual relevance and applicability of the tools, as well as generalisability to similar low-income communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信