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

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Economic evaluation
• health economics
• reporting guideline
• translation
• validation
• Belgium
• the netherlands

Article highlights

• A widespread adoption of the CHEERS II checklist is crucial to guarantee the reporting quality of economic evaluations.

• A validated Dutch translation of the CHEERS II checklist has been developed, enhancing clarity, accessibility and inclusivity for Dutch-speaking researchers, regulators, and students.

• We followed a four-step methodology, including translation and validation. Two separate validation rounds support finding a balance between literal translation and linguistic fluidity.

• Derived from established methodologies, our approach advocates for linguistic support, statistical analyses to support processing and decision-making, and solicitation of input from people with diverse levels of expertise and professional backgrounds.

• This study provides a detailed description of the applied methodology of a validated translation process, offering practical insights and recommendations to guide future translations of reporting guidelines and research instruments.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank Don Husereau and Frederico Augustovski for their input on the methodology, Tradoq for their linguistic support, and all health-economic experts participating to one of the two validation rounds.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2324048

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.