Issues in conducting cross-cultural research: implementation of an agreed international procotol designed by the WHOQOL Group for the conduct of focus groups eliciting the quality of life of older adults

被引:27
作者
Hawthorne, Graeme [1 ]
Davidson, Natasha [1 ]
Quinn, Kathryn [2 ]
McCrate, Farah [3 ]
Winkler, Ines [4 ]
Lucas, Ramona [5 ]
Kilian, Reinhold [6 ]
Molzahn, Anita [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Dept Psychiat, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Dept Psychiat, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, Midlothian, Scotland
[3] Univ Bath, Dept Psychol, Bath BA2 7AY, Avon, England
[4] Univ Leipzig, Dept Psychiat, Leipzig, Germany
[5] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Inst Catala Envelliment, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
[6] Univ Ulm, Dept Psychiat 2, Gunzburg, Germany
[7] Univ Victoria, Sch Nursing, Victoria, BC, Canada
关键词
Cross-cultural research; Instrument development; Multi-centre trials; Quality of life; Research protocols; WHOQOL; WHOQOL-OLD;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-006-0062-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Multi-centre and cross-cultural research require the use of common protocols if the results are to be either pooled or compared. All too often adherence to protocols is not discussed in reports and where it is reported poor adherence is frequently noted. This paper discusses the use of international guidelines developed by WHOQOL Field Centres to conduct and report focus groups aimed at eliciting key concepts of quality of life among older adults. This was the first step in the development of the WHOQOL-OLD instrument. Although there was overall adherence to the agreed guidelines, there were some differences in the level of reporting, even after participating Field Centres had the opportunity to explain their reports. The reasons for these discrepancies are reported. It is concluded that because of local situations, it is difficult to achieve identical implementation of multi-centre cross-cultural protocols and that the highest standards of auditing are required if findings are to be compared. Suggestions for how such protocols can be improved are given.
引用
收藏
页码:1257 / 1270
页数:14
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
*ABS, 1995, NAT HLTH SURV SF 36
[2]   A review of the progress towards developing health-related quality-of-life instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research [J].
Anderson, RT ;
Aaronson, NK ;
Bullinger, M ;
McBee, WL .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1996, 10 (04) :336-355
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1994, QUALITY LIFE ASSESSM
[4]   Use of focus groups to identify concerns about dialysis [J].
Bass, EB ;
Jenckes, MW ;
Fink, NE ;
Cagney, KA ;
Wu, AW ;
Sadler, JH ;
Meyer, KB ;
Levey, AS ;
Powe, NR .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1999, 19 (03) :287-295
[5]   DEVELOPING AND EVALUATING CROSS-CULTURAL INSTRUMENTS FROM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO OPTIMAL MODELS [J].
BULLINGER, M ;
ANDERSON, R ;
CELLA, D ;
AARONSON, N .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1993, 2 (06) :451-459
[6]  
Cottrell CK, 2002, J FAM PRACTICE, V51, P142
[7]   Quality of life assessment in a cross-cultural context: Use of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist in a multinational randomised trial comparing CMF and Zoladex (Goserlin) treatment in early breast cancer [J].
de Haes, JCJM ;
Olschewski, M .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1998, 9 (07) :745-750
[8]   Quality of Life assessment in clinical trials - Guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: The UK Medical Research Council experience [J].
Fayers, PM ;
Hopwood, P ;
Harvey, A ;
Girling, DJ ;
Machin, D ;
Stephens, R .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1997, 33 (01) :20-28
[9]  
Ferrell BR, 1997, PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, V6, P13, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611(199703)6:1<13::AID-PON231>3.0.CO
[10]  
2-S