A promising method for identifying cross-cultural differences in patients perspevtive: The use of Internet-based focus groups for content validation of new Patient Reported Outcome assessments

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 4, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Atkinson, Mark J ^a,b   Lohs, Jan ^c   Kuhagen, Ilka ^d   Kaufman, Julie ^e   Bhaidani, Shamsu ^f  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Qualitative Marketing Research   (United States)

^d International Qualitative Marketing Research   (Germany)

^e Kaufman Associates   (United States)

^f FocusForums   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTENT ANALYSIS; CONTENT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CULTURAL FACTOR; ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; GERMANY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OILY SKIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; DERMATOLOGY; FACE; FOCUS GROUPS; GERMANY; HUMANS; INTERNET; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; SCALP; SEBUM; SKIN DISEASES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33751187301     PISSN: 14777525     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-64     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Sevastik J, Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH: A new concept for the etiopathogenesis of the thoracospinal deformity of idiopathic scoliosis: summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE. European Spine Journal 2003, 12:440-450.
2. Kevern J, Webb C: Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2001, 21:323-333.
3. Calderón JL, Baker RS, Wolf KE: Focus Groups: A Qualitative Method Complementing Quantitative Research for Studying Culturally Diverse Groups. Journal of Education for Health 2000, 1:19-21.
4. Adler CL, Zarchin YR: The "virtual focus group": using the Internet to reach pregnant women on home bed rest. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2002, 31:418-427.
5. Glitz B, Hamasu C, Sandstrom H: The focus group: a tool for programme planning, assessment and decision-making--an American view. Health Info Libr J 2001, 18:30-37.
6. Deutschen Gesellschaft für Online-Forschung (Germany): http://www.dgof.de/.2006.
7. NEON (Germany): http://www.neon.bvm.org/. 2006.
8. Interactive marketing Research Organization (USA): http://www.imro.org/ .2006.
9. ESOMAR, AQR (UK): http://www.esomar.org/. 2006.
10. Kramish CM, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James AS, Reedy J, Zheng B: Health behavior changes after colon cancer: a comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Fam Community Health 2001, 24:88-103.
11. Atkinson MJ, Sinha A, Hass SL, Colman SS, Kumar RN, Brod M, Rowland CR: Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004, 2:12.
12. Desai P: Methods Beyond Interviewing in Qualitative Market Research 2002.
13. Buchanan T, Smith JL: Research on the Internet: validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1999, 31:565-571.
14. Buchanan T, Smith JL: Using the Internet for psychological research: personality testing on the World Wide Web. Br J Psychol 1999, 90 (Pt 1):125-144.
15. Atkinson MJ, Sinha A: Use of Internet technologies during the early development of PRO instrumentation: Experience from two PRO development projects. In From Quality of Life to Patient Outcomes Assessment: Research Agenda for a Paradigm Shift Edited by: Procedings DIAC. Baltimore; 2003.
16. Santanello NC, Baker D, Cappelleri JC, Copley-Merriman K, DeMarinis R, Gagnon JP, Hsuan A, Jackson J, Mahmoud R, Miller D, Morgan M, Osterhaus J, Tilson H, Willke R: Regulatory issues for health-related quality of life--PhRMA Health Outcomes Committee workshop, 1999. Value Health 2002, 5:14-25.
17. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P: Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials 2004, 25:535-552.
18. Szende A, Leidy NK, Revicki D: Health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes in the European centralized drug regulatory process: a review of guidance documents and performed authorizations of medicinal products 1995 to 2003. Value Health 2005, 8:534-548.
19. Papanicolaou S, Sykes D, Mossialos E: EMEA and the evaluation of health-related quality of life data in the drug regulatory process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004, 20:311-324.
20. Stewart KA, Neumann PJ: FDA actions against misleading or unsubstantiated economic and quality-of-life promotional claims: an analysis of warning letters and notices of violation. Value Health 2002, 5:389-396.
21. Apolone G, De Carli G, Brunetti M, Garattini S: Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and regulatory issues. An assessment of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommendations on the use of HRQOL measures in drug approval. Pharmacoeconomics 2001, 19:187-195.
22. Wiklund I: Quality of life and regulatory issues. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1996, 221:37-38.
23. Turner S: Economic and quality of life outcomes in oncology: the regulatory perspective. Oncology (Williston Park) 1995, 9:121-125.
24. Bech P: Issues of concern in the standardization and harmonization of drug trials in Europe: health-related quality of life, ESCT meeting, Strasbourg, 23-24 May 1991. Qual Life Res 1992, 1:143-145.
25. Mastaglia B, Toye C, Kristjanson LJ: Ensuring content validity in instrument development: challenges and innovative approaches. Contemp Nurse 2003, 14:281-291.
26. Haynes SN, Lench HC: Incremental validity of new clinical assessment measures. Psychol Assess 2003, 15:456-466.
27. Gotay CC, Lipscomb J, Snyder CF: Reflections on findings of the Cancer Outcomes Measurement Working Group: moving to the next phase. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:1568-1574.
28. Lohr KN: Health outcomes methodology symposium: summary and recommendations. Med Care 2000, 38:II194-II208.
29. Globe DR, Schoua-Glusberg A, Paz S, Yu E, Preston-Martin S, Azen S, Varma R: Using focus groups to develop a culturally sensitive methodology for epidemiological surveys in a Latino population: findings from the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study (LALES). Ethn Dis 2002, 12:259-266.
30. Huer MB, Saenz TI: Challenges and strategies for conducting survey and focus group research with culturally diverse groups. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2003, 12:209-220.
31. Lansdown RG, Goldstein H, Shah PM, Orley JH, Di G, Kaul KK, Kumar V, Laksanavicharn U, Reddy V: Culturally appropriate measures for monitoring child development at family and community level: a WHO collaborative study. Bull World Health Organ 1996, 74:283-290.
32. Clark MJ, Cary S, Diemert G, Ceballos R, Sifuentes M, Atteberry I, Vue F, Trieu S: Involving communities in community assessment. Public Health Nurs 2003, 20:456-463.
33. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplege A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Gandek B, Wagner A, Aaronson N, Bech P, et al.: Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998, 51:913-923.
34. Conway K, Mear I, Acquadro C: An attempt to develop minimal requirements for the 1st step of cross-cultural adaptation of patient reported outcomes (PROs) measures. Quality of Life News Letter 2001, 27:6.
35. Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ: A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28:212-232.
36. Jones PS, Lee JW, Phillips LR, Zhang XE, Jaceldo KB: An adaptation of Brislin's translation model for cross-cultural research. Nurs Res 2001, 50:300-304.
37. Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, McBee WL: A review of the progress towards developing health-related quality-oflife instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research. Pharmacoeconomics 1996, 10:336-355.
38. Van de Vijver FJR: Towards a Theory of Bias and Equivalence. Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence 1998:41-65 [http://www.gesis.org/ Publikationen/Zeitschriften/ZUMA%5FNachrichten%5Fspezial/#zn-3 J.ZUMA
39. Saxena S, Carlson D, Billington R: The WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-Bref): the importance of its items for cross-cultural research. Qual Life Res 2001, 10:711-721.
40. Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O'Connell KA: The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res 2004, 13:299-310.
41. WHOQOL: A cross-cultural study of spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs as components of quality of life. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:1486-1497.
42. Vogt DS, King DW, King LA: Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol Assess 2004, 16:231-243.
43. Bernal G, Bonilla J, Bellido C: Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments with Hispanics. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1995, 23:67-82.
44. Willgerodt MA: Using focus groups to develop culturally relevant instruments. West J Nurs Res 2003, 25:798-814.
45. Sperber AD: Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology 2004, 126:S124-S128.
46. Girod I, de la Loge C, Keininger D, Hunter MS: Development of a revised version of the Women's Health Questionnaire. Climacteric 2006, 9:4-12.
47. Yao G, Wu CH: Factorial invariance of the WHOQOL-BREF among disease groups. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1881-1888.
48. Atkinson MJ, Stewart WC, Fain JM, Stewart JA, Dhawan R, Mozaffari E, Lohs J: A new measure of patient satisfaction with ocular hypotensive medications: The Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intraocular Pressure (TSS-IOP). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:67.
49. Rabin R, de Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33:337-343.
50. Goldman AE, McDonald SS: The Group Depth Interview: Principles & Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall; 1987.
51. Weinberger M, Ferguson JA, Westmoreland G, Mamlin LA, Segar DS, Eckert GJ, Greene JY, Martin DK, Tierney WM: Can raters consistently evaluate the content of focus groups? Social Science & Medicine 1998, 46:929-933.
52. Kosny, A.: Joint Stories and Layered Tales: Support, Contradiction and Meaning Construction in Focus Group Research. The Qualitative Report 2006, 8:538-548 [http://www.nova.edu/ssss/ QR/QR8-4/kosny.pdf].
53. Morgan AK, Drury VB: Legitimising the subjectivity of human reality through qualitative research method. The Qualitative Report 2003, 8:70-80 [http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/mor gan.html].
54. Bate P, Robert G: Studying health care "quality" qualitatively: the dilemmas and tensions between different forms of evaluation research within the U.K. National Health Service. Qualitative Health Research 2002, 12:966-981.
55. Catterall M, Maclaran P: Focus group data and qualitative analysis programs: Coding the moving picture as well as the snapshots. Sociological Research Online 1997, 2:.
56. Sofaer S: Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them? Health Services Research 1999, 34:1101-1118.
57. Powell RA, Single HM, Lloyd KR: Focus groups in mental health research: enhancing the validity of user and provider questionnaires. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 1996, 42:193-206.
58. Brookes CE: On the nature of psychodynamic science. J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry 2004, 32:541-550.
59. Brooks SA: Re: Reconcilable differences: the marriage of qualitative and quantitative methods. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry - Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie 1997, 42:529-530.
60. Langhout RD: Reconceptualizing quantitative and qualitative methods: a case study dealing with place as an exemplar. American Journal of Community Psychology 2003, 32:229-244.
61. Kroll T, Neri MT, Miller K: Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research. Rehabilitation Nursing 2005, 30:106-113.
62. Abusabha R, Woelfel ML: Qualitative vs quantitative methods: two opposites that make a perfect match. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003, 103:566-569.
63. Stoop AP, Berg M: Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in patient care information system evaluation: guidance for the organizational decision maker. Methods of Information in Medicine 2003, 42:458-462.
64. Brinton B, Fujiki M: Blending quantitative and qualitative methods in language research and intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2003, 12:165-171.
65. Arborelius E, Timpka T: General practitioners' comments on video recorded consultations as an aid to understanding the doctor-patient relationship. Fam Pract 1990, 7:84-90.
66. F K: The Focused Group Interview and Moderator Bias. Marketing Review 1976, 31:19-21.
67. J W: Analysis and Interpretation. In Qualitative Research in Action London, Edward Arnold; 1989.
68. Verdugo MA, Schalock RL, Keith KD, Stancliffe RJ: Quality of life and its measurement: important principles and guidelines. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005, 49:707-717.
69. Ventegodt S, Hilden J, Merrick J: Measurement of quality of life I. A methodological framework. ScientificWorldJournal 2003, 3:950-961.
70. Miller TW, Walkowski J: Qualitative Research Online Edited by: Publishers R. Madison; 2004.