Canadian English translation and linguistic validation of the 13-MD to measure global health-related quality of life

References

• Karimi M, Brazier J, Brazier. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):645–649. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moons P, Budts W, De Geest S. Critique on the conceptualisation of quality of life: a review and evaluation of different conceptual approaches. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43(7):891–901. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touré M, Kouakou CRC, Poder TG. Dimensions used in instruments for QALY calculation: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(9):4428. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. 1946. Bull World Health Org. 2002;80(12):983–984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Basic documents. Forty-ninth edition (including amendments adopted up to 31 May 2019). 2020. Available at: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The World health report 2001: mental health: new understanding. New Hope PA: World Health Organization, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB, et al. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLOS Med. 2010;7(7):e100031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernooij-Dassen M, Jeon Y-H. Social health and dementia: the power of human capabilities. Int Psychogeriatr. 2016;28(5):701–703. doi: 10.1017/S1041610216000260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(1):59–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520250075037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen JA, Misajon R. A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: key lessons for a new instrument. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(3):733–743. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02341-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–336. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiber WJ, Groessl EJ, David KM, et al. Quality of well being self-administered (QWB-SA). San Diego CA USA: Scale; Health Services Research Center, University of California; 2008. p. 41.
   Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, et al. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health. 2014;17(8):846–853. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touré M, Lesage A, Poder TG. Development of a balanced instrument to measure global health-related quality of life: the 13-MD. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:837510. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.837510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. 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. 2005;8(2):94–104.28. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild D, Eremenco S, Mear I, et al. Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):430–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Vallerand RJ, Halliwell WR. Vers une méthode de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques : Implications pour la psychologie du sport. Canadian J Appl Sport Sci. 1983;8(1):9–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eremenco S, Pease S, Mann S, et al. PRO consortium’s process subcommittee. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium translation process: consensus development of updated best practices. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0037-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The health utilities index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson JR, Peacock SJ, Hawthorne G, et al. Construction of the descriptive system for the assessment of quality of life AQoL-6D utility instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavranezouli I, Brazier JE, Rowen D, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation–outcome measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(3):381–395. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12464431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med care. 1992;30(6):473–483. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern BJ, Bansback N, Norman R, et al. Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Med care. 2020;58(6):566–573. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworkin SL. Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch Sex Behav. 2012 Dec;41(6):1319–1320. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Report of the COSMIN group. 2019. https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-study-designing-checklist_final.pdf.
   Google Scholar