Improving health-related quality of life instrument translation into South African languages

South African Family Practice

 
 
Field Value
 
Title Improving health-related quality of life instrument translation into South African languages
 
Creator Marsh, Sophia E. Truter, Ilse
 
Subject Health economics, health policy, patient reported outcomes cost-utility analysis; economic evaluation; health-related quality of life; health technology assessment; South Africa; translation
Description Background: Most health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments have been created in English, which can influence their reliability and validity in non-English speaking populations. This study assessed the translation methodology of HRQoL instruments that have been used and translated into South African languages and which could be applied in cost-utility analyses (CUAs).Methods: A 2019 systematic review was updated with searches conducted in Medline, the Web of ScienceTM (WoSTM) Core Collection and the South African SciELO collection via the WoSTM Platform. Additional searches in Sabinet’s African Journals database and on instrument developers’ webpages were performed. Only HRQoL instruments suitable for CUAs were included. Articles reporting at least one element of the translation methods were included. Established good practice principles were used to evaluate the translation methodology.Results: Within the 39 publications identified, a dozen translated instruments have been used in South Africa. All instruments used were translated from English and none had originally been created in South Africa. Instrument developers’ translations were used more than study investigators’ translations. Almost all instrument developer versions met the full translation criteria. No investigator translated instrument met the full translation criteria primarily because recommendations on forward and back translations were not followed. However, this analysis was hampered by a lack of methodological reporting details. The most used instruments, which also had the most translated versions available, were the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36 version 2 and EORTC QLQ-C30.Conclusion: Instrument developers’ translations more often met recommended translation methodology compared with investigators’ versions. The EQ-5D-3L may be best suited for South African economic evaluations and for use in clinical practice, but further work may be needed.
 
Publisher AOSIS
 
Contributor Not applicable
Date 2021-11-08
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Peer-reviewed Article Review
Format text/html application/epub+zip text/xml application/pdf
Identifier 10.4102/safp.v63i1.5361
 
Source South African Family Practice; Vol 63, No 1 (2021): Part 4; 11 pages 2078-6204 2078-6190
 
Language eng
 
Relation
The following web links (URLs) may trigger a file download or direct you to an alternative webpage to gain access to a publication file format of the published article:

https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5361/7058 https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5361/7059 https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5361/7060 https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5361/7061
 
Coverage South Africa up to April 2021 South Africans
Rights Copyright (c) 2021 Sophia E. Marsh, Illse Truter https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
ADVERTISEMENT