Article type
Abstract
Background: The Clinician Guideline Determinants Questionnaire(CGDQ) was developed to identify, from the perspective of health professionals, those factors that determine the use of clinical practice guidelines to select and prioritize interventions that allow their effective implementation. This instrument was developed in English, and to be used worldwide, it must be available in different languages.
Objective: We aimed to translate and culturally adapt and validate the CGDQ into Spanish
Methods: To translate and culturally adapt the questionnaire to Spanish, we followed the guidelines proposed by the ISPOR Principles of Good Practices for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. The process consisted of 1)forward and back translation, 2)input from a group of experts and 3)cognitive debriefing interviews. First, two independent native Spanish speakers fluent in English and with experience in public politics independently conducted a forward translation to obtain the first Spanish version. This version was translated back into English separately by two native English translators fluent in Spanish. Second, an expert panel composed of translators, the project manager, and guideline development experts evaluated the conceptual equivalence between the original version and the back-translation. Third, we interviewed five health professionals from the Chilean public health system and users of clinical practice guidelines. We analyzed data using the constant comparison method to categorize the information according to the issues identified in each item (writing, clarity, or applicability). We assessed the content validity with experts in guideline development from Spanish-speaking countries who rated instrument items for relevance to determine the item and scale content validity index.
Results: From the 33 items in the original version, 13 were conceptually equivalent, but with grammatical differences between the back translation and the original version during the content comparison. Through cognitive interviews, we identified five items with wording issues, three with clarity issues, and three with applicability issues. We are analyzing the results of content validity and will present them at the Global Evidence Submit.
Conclusion: The Spanish version of the CGDQ was conceptually equivalent to the original version and will probably provide satisfactory evidence of content validity. This tool will help guideline developers improve their implementation to benefit patients.
Objective: We aimed to translate and culturally adapt and validate the CGDQ into Spanish
Methods: To translate and culturally adapt the questionnaire to Spanish, we followed the guidelines proposed by the ISPOR Principles of Good Practices for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. The process consisted of 1)forward and back translation, 2)input from a group of experts and 3)cognitive debriefing interviews. First, two independent native Spanish speakers fluent in English and with experience in public politics independently conducted a forward translation to obtain the first Spanish version. This version was translated back into English separately by two native English translators fluent in Spanish. Second, an expert panel composed of translators, the project manager, and guideline development experts evaluated the conceptual equivalence between the original version and the back-translation. Third, we interviewed five health professionals from the Chilean public health system and users of clinical practice guidelines. We analyzed data using the constant comparison method to categorize the information according to the issues identified in each item (writing, clarity, or applicability). We assessed the content validity with experts in guideline development from Spanish-speaking countries who rated instrument items for relevance to determine the item and scale content validity index.
Results: From the 33 items in the original version, 13 were conceptually equivalent, but with grammatical differences between the back translation and the original version during the content comparison. Through cognitive interviews, we identified five items with wording issues, three with clarity issues, and three with applicability issues. We are analyzing the results of content validity and will present them at the Global Evidence Submit.
Conclusion: The Spanish version of the CGDQ was conceptually equivalent to the original version and will probably provide satisfactory evidence of content validity. This tool will help guideline developers improve their implementation to benefit patients.