![]() ![]() Thus, results of those studies may be influenced by a mixture of Chinese and Western cultures. These results suggest that health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures may need to be interpreted within a cultural framework.Īlthough these studies have begun to address the need for different versions of Chinese health surveys, one issue is that the samples used in these studies (either Chinese Americans or Hong-Kong Chinese) have been somewhat adapted to Western cultures from an ecological point of view. ![]() However, both Chinese-American studies reported less satisfactory psychometric results for the mental health and vitality scales, as evidenced by high correlations between items in both scales. Results of psychometric testing of these Chinese versions suggested that scaling assumptions were generally met and conceptual equivalence was achieved in comparison with forms using Western languages. The published Chinese versions are for the US Chinese population and Hong Kong (the HK translation is being used in some other Southeast Asian countries). Similarly, the IQOLA Project has collaborated on the development of several Chinese versions of the SF-36 Health Survey. English versions of the SF-36 Health Survey, reflecting linguistic differences in the two cultures. Although most of the words are similar, there are US English and U.K. ![]() English and Chinese provide good examples of this. The International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project was formed in 1991 and has developed a standard protocol for translating and psychometrically testing the SF-36 in different language versions.Īs one aspect of health status assessment is to measure an individual's physical and mental state, respondents are often sensitive to wording which reflects differences in ethnicity and culture, even if the language used is the same in a broad sense. Amongst those instruments which have become standard in the health status field, the SF-36 is one of the most widely accepted, extensively translated and tested instruments around the world. Extensive psychometric testing is also required for the translated instruments. In particular, the well-recognized differences between Western and Eastern cultures may well be reflected in health status measurement results.Įncountering diversified cultural backgrounds, researchers hence have to take even more cautious steps in translating well-established standard instruments in Asia. Hence, there is an increasing need for international standards to measure health status in a manner that allows comparisons across countries, but which also are relevant within individual cultures. Health researchers have begun to evaluate whether common standardized health status measures are technically and conceptually equivalent for various socio-cultural groups. Over the past 20 years, health status measures have been widely applied in different medical fields such as oncology, cardiology, arthritis, and psychiatry. With the fast growth in health care expenditures, this concept has been increasingly used as an important attribute in patient care and clinical studies as well as health economic evaluations. Health-related quality of life has emerged as the new reflection of modern medicine as viewed from biopsychosocial perspectives. Nevertheless, well-developed health outcome measurement systems have expanded the measurement of health beyond the classical endpoints of mortality and morbidity in clinical practice. The health outcomes of a population can be measured in terms of etiology and pathogenesis. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |