Abstract
In order to promote self-determination, patients have to be actively involved with their care providers in health-care decision making, especially when such decisions involve personal preferences. Decision aids (DAs) are tools that can contribute to patient-centered decision-making processes. To benefit from previous fieldwork and avoid duplicating developmental efforts and producing many similar DAs, the adaptation of existing DAs to new cultural contexts is a resource-saving option. However, there are no guidelines on how to culturally adapt and validate DAs. This study aimed to identify and document existing procedures for the cultural adaptation and validation of patient DAs. A scoping review examined studies conducting cultural adaptation and/or validation of patient DAs. The following databases were searched in February 2016: CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), PASCAL, PsychINFO, and PubMed. From the 13 studies selected, 11 main procedures were identified: appraisal of the original DA, assessment of the new cultural context, translation, linguistic adaptation, cultural adaptation, usability testing, exploration of DA acceptability, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. A conceptual synthesis of these studies suggests there are four phases in the adaptation/validation process of DAs aimed at: 1) exploring the original DA and the new cultural context, 2) adapting the original DA to the new cultural context, 3) lab testing the preliminary version of the adapted DA, and 4) field testing the adapted DA in a real use context. By facilitating the adaptation and broader implementation of DAs, patients may ultimately be empowered in decision-making processes.
Video abstract
Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the AGE-WELL Network of Centres of Excellence (Grant # AW CRP 2015-WP8.1). Drs Auger and Guay received salary support from the Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec (FRQS) and Dr Mortenson from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This study also recognizes the financial support from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal (CRIR) for the linguistic revision of this paper.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.