↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cultural adaptation and validation of patient decision aids: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Cultural adaptation and validation of patient decision aids: a scoping review
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s151833
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Chenel, W Ben Mortenson, Manon Guay, Jeffrey William Jutai, Claudine Auger

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 3 5%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,878,604
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#452
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,403
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.