Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS II) statement: a validated Dutch translation.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2324048

Amber Werbrouck, Esther de Bekker-Grob, Maiwenn Al, Koen Putman, Ruben Willems

{"title":"Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS II) statement: a validated Dutch translation.","authors":"Amber Werbrouck, Esther de Bekker-Grob, Maiwenn Al, Koen Putman, Ruben Willems","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2324048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study primarily aimed to develop a validated Dutch translation of the 28 items of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) II. A secondary aim was to provide a worked example of a scientifically valid translation process.Methods: A four-step process was applied: (1) forward translation, (2) backward translation, (3) quantitative validation (two back-translated English versions vs. original English version), and (4) qualitative validation (one Dutch version vs. original English version), resulting in the final Dutch CHEERS II checklist.Results: During quantitative validation, the average scores indicated high language comparability (1.88 (SD 0.70); 1.70 (SD 0.73)) and interpretation similarity (1.77 (SD 0.81); 1.54 (SD 0.74)). Four items required formal revision. In the qualitative validation step, feedback primarily focused on specific terms 'outcomes,' 'benefits and harms,' '(year of) conversion,' 'any,' and 'characterizing.'Conclusion: Despite English being the common language of science, translating research instruments remains relevant to enhance clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity. The Dutch translation can be used by students, regulators, researchers, or others to report and evaluate reporting of economic evaluations. Our detailed description of the applied methodology can facilitate future translations of research instruments.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2324048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study primarily aimed to develop a validated Dutch translation of the 28 items of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) II. A secondary aim was to provide a worked example of a scientifically valid translation process.

Methods: A four-step process was applied: (1) forward translation, (2) backward translation, (3) quantitative validation (two back-translated English versions vs. original English version), and (4) qualitative validation (one Dutch version vs. original English version), resulting in the final Dutch CHEERS II checklist.

Results: During quantitative validation, the average scores indicated high language comparability (1.88 (SD 0.70); 1.70 (SD 0.73)) and interpretation similarity (1.77 (SD 0.81); 1.54 (SD 0.74)). Four items required formal revision. In the qualitative validation step, feedback primarily focused on specific terms 'outcomes,' 'benefits and harms,' '(year of) conversion,' 'any,' and 'characterizing.'

Conclusion: Despite English being the common language of science, translating research instruments remains relevant to enhance clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity. The Dutch translation can be used by students, regulators, researchers, or others to report and evaluate reporting of economic evaluations. Our detailed description of the applied methodology can facilitate future translations of research instruments.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

综合卫生经济评估报告标准 2022（CHEERS II）声明：经过验证的荷兰语译文。

研究目的：本研究的主要目的是对《卫生经济评估综合报告标准》（CHEERS）II 的 28 个项目进行有效的荷兰语翻译。其次是为科学有效的翻译过程提供一个实例：方法：采用四步流程：（01）正向翻译；（02）逆向翻译；（03）定量验证（两个逆向翻译的英文版本与原始英文版本对比）；（04）定性验证（一个荷兰语版本与原始英文版本对比），最终形成荷兰语 CHEERS II 核对表：在定量验证过程中，平均得分表明语言可比性高（1.88 (SD 0.70); 1.70 (SD 0.73)），解释相似性高（1.77 (SD 0.81); 1.54 (SD 0.74)）。有四个项目需要正式修订。在定性验证步骤中，反馈意见主要集中在 "结果"、"益处和危害"、"（转换年）"、"任何 "和 "定性 "等具体术语上：尽管英语是科学界的通用语言，但翻译研究工具对提高清晰度、可及性和包容性仍具有重要意义。荷兰语译文可供学生、监管者、研究人员或其他人用于报告和评估经济评估报告。我们对应用方法的详细描述有助于今后研究工具的翻译。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.