源自国际文献的项目能否用于国内生活质量工具?中国 EQ-HWB 概念化定性研究。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Guangjie Zhang, Zhihao Yang, Nan Luo, Pei Wang, Jan Busschbach
{"title":"源自国际文献的项目能否用于国内生活质量工具?中国 EQ-HWB 概念化定性研究。","authors":"Guangjie Zhang, Zhihao Yang, Nan Luo, Pei Wang, Jan Busschbach","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00767-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new questionnaire for measuring quality of life (QoL) from a broad perspective. The items of the EQ-HWB were derived based on a 'qualitative review' of literature, which reported primarily on Western studies. It can be argued that the QoL is a cultural-related concept and therefore people from China have a different understanding of the QoL. This study aimed to explore whether Chinese citizens could understand the EQ-HWB's candidate items and what they thought of those items. In doing so, we wanted to examine the face validity of the candidate items and explore if further cultural adaptation is necessary.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This research was part of the E-QALY project, in which 36 candidate items were selected for the EQ-HWB from a 97-item pool. In China, three interviewers investigated the face validity of these EQ-HWB candidate items in semi-structured qualitative face-to-face interviews. Respondents were invited to report 'problems' with regard to the interpretation of the items and these problems were grouped into themes. We explored to what extent those themes related to specific cultural aspects in China. We also classified the rates of reported problems for each item into three groups: 1) less than 20%, 2) from 20-50%, and 3) over 50%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For 17 items the rate of reported problems was less than 20%, 15 items fell into the second group (with 20 - 50%) and for 4 items the rate of problems reported was more than 50%. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: ambiguous problems in the interpretation of 16 items; difficult to understand (11); contained a complex negative expression (10); examples used seemed inappropriate (7); misleading connotation in Chinese (2); long and complex (2); complex response options (1); and use of non-colloquial language (1).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our research shows that EQ-HWB candidate items require careful examination to make them more comprehensible. Most of the reported problem themes were generic problems related to the items, and only a few face validity issues appeared to relate to specific cultural aspects in China, even though most of the items were based on Western studies. Our findings are reassuring for the instrument's international application, especially in China.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"83"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11300404/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can items derived from international literature be used in national quality of life instruments? A qualitative study conceptualising the EQ-HWB in China.\",\"authors\":\"Guangjie Zhang, Zhihao Yang, Nan Luo, Pei Wang, Jan Busschbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00767-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new questionnaire for measuring quality of life (QoL) from a broad perspective. The items of the EQ-HWB were derived based on a 'qualitative review' of literature, which reported primarily on Western studies. It can be argued that the QoL is a cultural-related concept and therefore people from China have a different understanding of the QoL. This study aimed to explore whether Chinese citizens could understand the EQ-HWB's candidate items and what they thought of those items. In doing so, we wanted to examine the face validity of the candidate items and explore if further cultural adaptation is necessary.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This research was part of the E-QALY project, in which 36 candidate items were selected for the EQ-HWB from a 97-item pool. In China, three interviewers investigated the face validity of these EQ-HWB candidate items in semi-structured qualitative face-to-face interviews. Respondents were invited to report 'problems' with regard to the interpretation of the items and these problems were grouped into themes. We explored to what extent those themes related to specific cultural aspects in China. We also classified the rates of reported problems for each item into three groups: 1) less than 20%, 2) from 20-50%, and 3) over 50%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For 17 items the rate of reported problems was less than 20%, 15 items fell into the second group (with 20 - 50%) and for 4 items the rate of problems reported was more than 50%. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: ambiguous problems in the interpretation of 16 items; difficult to understand (11); contained a complex negative expression (10); examples used seemed inappropriate (7); misleading connotation in Chinese (2); long and complex (2); complex response options (1); and use of non-colloquial language (1).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our research shows that EQ-HWB candidate items require careful examination to make them more comprehensible. Most of the reported problem themes were generic problems related to the items, and only a few face validity issues appeared to relate to specific cultural aspects in China, even though most of the items were based on Western studies. Our findings are reassuring for the instrument's international application, especially in China.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11300404/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00767-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00767-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介EQ Health and Wellbeing(EQ-HWB)是一种从广义角度测量生活质量(QoL)的新问卷。EQ-HWB 的项目是在对文献进行 "定性审查 "的基础上得出的,这些文献主要是关于西方研究的报告。可以说,QoL 是一个与文化相关的概念,因此中国人对 QoL 有不同的理解。本研究旨在探讨中国公民能否理解 EQ-HWB 的候选项目,以及他们对这些项目的看法。在此过程中,我们希望检验候选项目的表面效度,并探讨是否有必要进一步进行文化调整:本研究是 E-QALY 项目的一部分,从 97 个项目中选出了 36 个候选项目作为 EQ-HWB 的候选项目。在中国,三名访谈员通过半结构化定性面对面访谈调查了这些 EQ-HWB 候选项目的面效度。我们邀请受访者报告在解释项目时遇到的 "问题",并将这些问题归纳为若干主题。我们探讨了这些主题与中国特定文化方面的关联程度。我们还将每个项目的问题报告率分为三组:1)20% 以下;2)20%-50%;3)50% 以上:结果:17 个项目的问题报告率低于 20%,15 个项目属于第二组(20%-50%),4 个项目的问题报告率超过 50%。主题分析揭示了八个主题:16 个项目的解释存在模糊问题;难以理解(11 个);包含复杂的负面表达(10 个);使用的例子似乎不恰当(7 个);中文内涵误导(2 个);冗长复杂(2 个);复杂的回答选项(1 个);使用非口语语言(1 个):讨论:我们的研究表明,EQ-HWB 候选项目需要仔细研究,以使其更易于理解。大多数报告的问题主题都是与项目相关的一般性问题,只有少数面子效度问题似乎与中国的特定文化方面有关,尽管大多数项目都是基于西方研究。我们的研究结果为该工具在国际上的应用,尤其是在中国的应用提供了保证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can items derived from international literature be used in national quality of life instruments? A qualitative study conceptualising the EQ-HWB in China.

Introduction: The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new questionnaire for measuring quality of life (QoL) from a broad perspective. The items of the EQ-HWB were derived based on a 'qualitative review' of literature, which reported primarily on Western studies. It can be argued that the QoL is a cultural-related concept and therefore people from China have a different understanding of the QoL. This study aimed to explore whether Chinese citizens could understand the EQ-HWB's candidate items and what they thought of those items. In doing so, we wanted to examine the face validity of the candidate items and explore if further cultural adaptation is necessary.

Methods: This research was part of the E-QALY project, in which 36 candidate items were selected for the EQ-HWB from a 97-item pool. In China, three interviewers investigated the face validity of these EQ-HWB candidate items in semi-structured qualitative face-to-face interviews. Respondents were invited to report 'problems' with regard to the interpretation of the items and these problems were grouped into themes. We explored to what extent those themes related to specific cultural aspects in China. We also classified the rates of reported problems for each item into three groups: 1) less than 20%, 2) from 20-50%, and 3) over 50%.

Results: For 17 items the rate of reported problems was less than 20%, 15 items fell into the second group (with 20 - 50%) and for 4 items the rate of problems reported was more than 50%. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: ambiguous problems in the interpretation of 16 items; difficult to understand (11); contained a complex negative expression (10); examples used seemed inappropriate (7); misleading connotation in Chinese (2); long and complex (2); complex response options (1); and use of non-colloquial language (1).

Discussion: Our research shows that EQ-HWB candidate items require careful examination to make them more comprehensible. Most of the reported problem themes were generic problems related to the items, and only a few face validity issues appeared to relate to specific cultural aspects in China, even though most of the items were based on Western studies. Our findings are reassuring for the instrument's international application, especially in China.

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
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 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