Advertisement

The Simplified Chinese version of SF-6Dv2: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric testing

  • Jing WuEmail author
  • Shitong Xie
  • Xiaoning He
  • Gang Chen
  • John E. Brazier
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

To translate, cross-culturally adapt and preliminarily test the Simplified Chinese version of SF-6Dv2 among the Chinese general population.

Methods

The translation followed the international guidelines. Face-to-face cognitive debriefing was carried out in a small sample of the Chinese general population, using both think-aloud and retrospective probing methods. Preliminary psychometric properties (including acceptability, ceiling/floor effect and known-group validity) were investigated using a cross-sectional survey which was conducted in a representative sample of the general population in Tianjin, China.

Results

Translation was conducted by forward- and back-translation, followed by harmonization and expert review. Two minor modifications were made during cognitive debriefing. Five hundred and nine respondents (54.4% males, aged 18–86 years) participated in the psychometric testing survey. The mean (standard deviation) duration of finishing SF-6Dv2 was 96.9 s (58.5 s). No respondents claimed difficulties on understanding/answering, and no ceiling/floor effect was found in the total summary score. Known-group validity verified that the questionnaire was able to distinguish between subgroups in terms of whether having chronic conditions.

Conclusions

The Simplified Chinese version of SF-6Dv2 is demonstrated to be conceptually equivalent with the original English version, which is also understandable and easy to finish among the Chinese general population.

Keywords

SF-6D Translation Cross-cultural adaption Psychometric test Health-related quality of life China 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. David Churchman and his colleagues within the Clinical Outcomes team at Oxford University Innovation (OUI) Ltd for their contributions to the translation process and the Translation Certification they issued. We also thank the external experts, Feng Xie, Nan Luo, Shunping Li, Hongyan Wu, Xuejing Jin and Haijing Guan, for reviewing the draft translation and proposing valuable suggestions.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71673197 & 71804122).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The protocol of this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University (No. 20180615). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11136_2020_2419_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics,21(2), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care,30(6), 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Machin, D., & Fayers, P. (2013). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lam, C. L., Brazier, J., & McGhee, S. M. (2008). Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health,11(2), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ye, Z., Zheng, Y., & Sun, L. (2018). Introduction and research status of SF 6-dimensional health state classification system. Chinese Health Economics,37(2), 70–73.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poder, T. G., Fauteux, V., He, J., & Brazier, J. E. (2019). Consistency between three different ways of administering the short form 6 dimension version 2. Value Health,22(7), 837–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,46(12), 1417–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health,8(2), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research,12(3), 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tianjin Statistic Bureau. (2018). Tianjin Statistical Yearbook 2017. Retrieved January 5, 2019, from https://stats.tj.gov.cn/Item/27612.aspx.
  13. 13.
    Walters, S. J. (2009). Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: A practical guide to analysis and interpretation (Vol. 84). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anota, A., Mariet, A. S., Maingon, P., Joly, F., Bosset, J. F., Guizard, A. V., et al. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite questionnaire for health-related quality of life in prostate cancer patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,14(1), 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doward, L. C., McKenna, S. P., Meads, D. M., Twiss, J., Revicki, D., Wong, R. L., et al. (2007). Translation and validation of non-English versions of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQOL) questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,5, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., & Rowen, D. (2012). Reducing the floor effect in the SF-6D: A feasibility study. Applied Research in Quality of Life,7(2), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research,14(1), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu, C., Gong, Y., Wu, J., Zhang, S., Yin, X., Dong, X., et al. (2016). Chinese version of the EQ-5D preference weights: Applicability in a Chinese general population. PLoS ONE,11(10), e0164334.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164334.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia-Gordillo, M. A., Collado-Mateo, D., Olivares, P. R., & Adsuar, J. C. (2018). Chilean population norms derived from the health-related quality of Life SF-6D. The European Journal of Health Economics,19(5), 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2015). SF-6D Portuguese population norms. The European Journal of Health Economics,16(3), 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ciconelli, R. M., Ferraz, M. B., Kowalski, S., Pinheiro Gda, R., & Sato, E. I. (2015). Brazilian urban population norms derived from the health-related quality of life SF-6D. Quality of Life Research,24(10), 2559–2564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., & Goodall, S. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,37(1), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Quality of Life Research,20(3), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fu, A. Z., & Kattan, M. W. (2006). Racial and ethnic differences in preference-based health status measure. Current Medical Research and Opinion,22(12), 2439–2448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leung, B., Luo, N., So, L., & Quan, H. (2007). Comparing three measures of health status (perceived health with Likert-type scale, EQ-5D, and number of chronic conditions) in Chinese and white Canadians. Medical Care,45(7), 610–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Pharmaceutical Science and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business SchoolMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations