Translation and adaption of the interRAI suite to local requirements in Belgian hospitals

BMC Geriatrics

Koen Milisen¹  Steven Boonen³  Mieke Deschodt¹  Philip Moons²  Johan Flamaing¹  Nathalie IH Wellens² 

[1] Leuven University Division of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;Center for Health Services and Nursing Research, Kapucijnenvoer 35 – PB 7001/4, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium;Leuven University Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases, Leuven, Belgium

关键词: Instrument translation;    Validation studies;    Minimum Data Set;    interRAI Acute Care;    Inpatient;    Geriatric assessment;    Aged;   

Others  :  858065
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2318-12-53

 received in 2011-11-23, accepted in 2012-08-31,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The interRAI Suite contains comprehensive geriatric assessment tools designed for various healthcare settings. Although each instrument is developed for a particular population, together they form an integrated health evaluation system. The interRAI Acute Care Minimum Data Set (interRAI AC) is tailored for hospitalized older persons. Our aim in this study was to translate and adapt the interRAI AC to the Belgian hospital context, where it can be used together with the interRAI Home Care (HC) and the interRAI Long Term Care Facility (LTCF).

Methods

A systematic, comprehensive, and rigorous 10-step approach was used to adapt the interRAI AC to local requirements. After linguistic translation by an official translator, five researchers assessed the translation for appropriate hospital jargon. Three researchers double-checked for translation accuracy and proposed additional items. A provisional version was converted into the three official languages of Belgium—Flemish, French, and German. Next, a multidisciplinary panel of nine experts judged item relevance to the Belgian care context and advised which country-specific items should be added. After these suggestions were incorporated into the interRAI AC, hospital staff from nine Flemish hospitals field-tested the tool in their practice. After evaluating field-test results, we compared the interRAI AC with Belgian versions of the interRAI HC and interRAI LTCF. Next, the Flemish, French, and German versions of the Belgian interRAI portfolio were harmonized. Finally, we submitted the Belgian interRAI AC to the interRAI organization for ratification.

Results

Eighteen administrative items of the interRAI AC were adapted to the Belgian healthcare context (e.g., usual residence, formal community services prior to admission). Fourteen items assessing the ‘informal caregiver’, and 17 items, including country-specific items, were added (e.g., advanced directive for euthanasia).

Conclusions

The interRAI AC was adapted to local requirements using a meticulous and recursive 10-step approach. As use of the interRAI Suite continues to grow worldwide and as it continues to expand to other care settings and populations, this procedure can guide future translations. This procedure might also be used by others facing similar challenges of complex translation and adaptation situations, where multidimensional instruments are used across multiple care settings in multiple languages.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Wellens et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]interRAI [cited October 2011] Available from:. http://www.interrai.org/section/view/?node=32 webcite]
• [2]Gray LC, Berg K, Fries BE, Henrard JC, Hirdes JP, Steel K, Morris JN: Sharing clinical information across care settings: the birth of an integrated assessment system. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:71. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Bernabei R, Landi F, Onder G, Liperoti R, Garnbassi G: Second and third generation assessment instruments: The birth of standardization in geriatric care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008, 63:308-313.
• [4]Wellens NIH, Deschodt M, Flamaing J, Moons P, Boonen S, Boman X, Gosset C, Petermans J, Milisen K: First-generation versus third-generation comprehensive geriatric assessment instruments in the acute hospital setting: A comparison of the Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). J Nutr Health Aging 2011, 15:638-644.
• [5]Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R, Jacobsen BS, Mezey MD, Pauly MV, Schwartz JS: Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 1999, 281:613-620.
• [6]Carpenter GI, Teare GF, Steel K, Berg K, Murphy K, Bjornson J, Jonsson PV, Hirdes JP: A new assessment for elders admitted to acute care: Reliability of the MDS-AC. Aging (Milano) 2001, 13:316-330.
• [7]Onder G, Carpenter I, Finne-Soveri H, Gindin J, Frijters D, Henrard JC, Nikolaus T, Topinkova E, Tosato M, Liperoti R, Landi F, Bernabei R: Assessment of nursing home residents in Europe: the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) study. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK: Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs 2004, 48:175-186.
• [9]Sperber AD, Devellis RF, Boehlecke B: Cross-Cultural Translation - Methodology and Validation. J Cross Cult Psychol 1994, 25:501-524.
• [10]Sperber AD: Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology 2004, 126:S124-S128.
• [11]Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA: Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs 2007, 58:386-395.
• [12]Geisinger KF: Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1994, 6:304-312.
• [13]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
• [14]Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D: Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Health-Related Quality-Of-Life Measures - Literature-Review and Proposed Guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993, 46:1417-1432.
• [15]Bracken BA, Barona A: State of the art procedures for translating, validating and using pshychoeducational tests in cross-cultural assessment. Sch Psychol Int 1991, 12:119-132.
• [16]Lynn MR: Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986, 35:382-385.
• [17]Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007, 30:459-467.
• [18]Wellens NIH, Deschodt M, Boonen S, Flamaing J, Gray L, Moons P, Milisen K: Validity of the interRAI Acute Care based on test content: a multi-center study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2011, 23:476-486.
• [19]Wellens NIH, Milisen K, Flamaing J, Moons P: Methods to assess the validity of the interRAI Acute Care: a framework to guide clinimetric testing. J Eval Clin Pract 2012, 18:296-306.
• [20]Wellens NIH, Milisen K, Flamaing J, Moons P: Methods to assess the reliability of the interRAI Acute Care: a framework to guide clinimetric testing part II. J Eval Clin Pract 2012, 18:822-827.
• [21]Büla CJ, Wietlisbach V: Use of the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) to detect cognitive impairment in the acute care setting: concurrent and predictive validity. Brain Res Bull 2009, 80:173-178.
• [22]Steeman E, Moons P, Milisen K, De Bal N, De Geest S, De Froidmont C, Tellier V, Gosset C, Abraham I: Implementation of discharge management for geriatric patients at risk of readmission or institutionalization. Int J Qual Health Care 2006, 18:352-358.