Literature DB >> 10277126

Cross-cultural issues in the use of socio-medical indicators.

S M Hunt.   

Abstract

Socio-medical indicators for the assessment of physical, psychological and social conditions have become increasingly popular as adjuncts to traditional clinical and epidemiological measures. Most such indicators have been developed in the U.S.A. or Great Britain and considerable problems may arise from attempts to use them in other cultures. The ambiguity inherent in the terms "health" and "illness" is compounded cross-culturally by differences in the meaning system of cultures, their values, expectations and historical development. Consideration of cultural differences must precede any attempt to adapt already existing instruments for use in a culture or within a sub-group whose members were not included in the development process. Reliability and validity of socio-medical measures can only be assumed after the closest attention has been paid to the technical, conceptual and linguistic issues which arise from translation. This paper details some of the issues involved together with an account of the practical problems arising from the translation of the Nottingham Health Profile into Arabic and Spanish.

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 10277126     DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(86)90004-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  12 in total

1.  The EORTC breast cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23): translation and validation study of the Iranian version.

Authors:  A Montazeri; I Harirchi; M Vahdani; F Khaleghi; S Jarvandi; M Ebrahimi; M Haji-Mahmoodi
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Health state preferences are equivalent in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.

Authors:  Richard D Hector; John P Anderson; Rosemarie C P Paul; Robert E Weiss; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Mechanisms of salinity tolerance in plants.

Authors:  J M Cheeseman
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity.

Authors:  J Alonso; J M Anto; C Moreno
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 5.  Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures.

Authors:  R D Hays; R Anderson; D Revicki
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  German-translated Norfolk quality of life (QOL-DN) identifies the same factors as the English version of the tool and discriminates different levels of neuropathy severity.

Authors:  Etta J Vinik; James F Paulson; Stephanie L Ford-Molvik; Aaron I Vinik
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2008-11

7.  Question context and priming meaning of health: effect on differences in self-rated health between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites.

Authors:  Sunghee Lee; Norbert Schwarz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life.

Authors:  M A Sprangers; A Cull; K Bjordal; M Groenvold; N K Aaronson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a multinational perspective.

Authors:  P D Cleary; G Morrissey; G Oster
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  The Nottingham Health Profile as a measure of quality of life following combined heart and lung transplantation.

Authors:  B J O'Brien; N R Banner; S Gibson; M H Yacoub
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.