Advertisement

Tri-country translation, cultural adaptation, and validity confirmation of the Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment

  • Nicole EricksonEmail author
  • Lena J. Storck
  • Alexandra Kolm
  • Kristina Norman
  • Theres Fey
  • Vanessa Schiffler
  • Faith D. Ottery
  • Harriët Jager-Wittenaar
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is the only malnutrition (risk) assessment tool that combines patient-generated measures with professional-generated (medical) factors. We aimed to apply international standards to produce a high quality, validated, translation and cultural adaptation of the original PG-SGA for the Austrian, German, and Swiss setting.

Methods

Analogue to methodology used for the Dutch, Portuguese, and Thai versions of PG-SGA, the ten steps of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research’s principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation were followed. Comprehensibility and difficulty of the translation were assessed in 103 patients and 104 healthcare professionals recruited from all three German-speaking countries. Content validity of the translation was assessed among healthcare professionals (HCP). Item and scale indices were calculated for content validity (I-CVI; S-CVI), comprehensibility (I-CI; S-CI), and difficulty (I-DI; S-DI).

Results

Patients' perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the PG-SGA fell within the range considered to be excellent (S-CI = 0.90, S-DI = 0.90), HCP-perceived content validity (S-CVI = 0.90) was also excellent, while HCP-perceived comprehensibility fell within the high range of acceptable (S-CI = 0.87). The professional component of the PG-SGA was perceived as below acceptable (S-DI = 0.72) with the physical exam being rated the most difficult (I-DI=0.29-0.75).

Conclusions

The systematic approach resulted in a high-quality validation of the German language version of the PG-SGA, that is internationally comparable, comprehensible, easy to complete, and considered relevant for use in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

Keywords

PG-SGA Disease-related malnutrition Screening Nutritional Assessment Validation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank everyone who supported this study, be it in recruiting patients and professionals, spreading the word, or doing “busy work” like filing the completed questionnaires. In particular, we would like to thank Diana Schweizer, Caroline Kiss, Ursula Lukas, Carmen Lautner, the dietitian association in Germany and thier oncology specialists group. Furthermore, we would like to thank Roche, for providing funding for the completion of steps 1-6 (translation and back translation). Roche was not involved for the completion of steps 7-10.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

F. O is co-creator PG-SGA and co-founder PG-SGA/Pt-Global Platform. She was co-developer of the PG-SGA-based Pt-Global app/web tool. H. J.-W. was co-developer of the PG-SGA-based Pt-Global app/web tool. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. All authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.

References

  1. 1.
    Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, Bauer J, Van Gossum A, Klek S et al (2015) Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition - an ESPEN consensus statement. Clin Nutr 34(3):335–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cederholm T, Jensen GL (2017) To create a consensus on malnutrition diagnostic criteria: a report from the Global Leadership Initiative On Malnutrition (GLIM) meeting at the ESPEN congress 2016. Clin Nutr 36(1):7–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poulia KA, Klek S, Doundoulakis I, Bouras E, Karayiannis D, Baschali A, Passakiotou M, Chourdakis M (2017) The two most popular malnutrition screening tools in the light of the new ESPEN consensus definition of the diagnostic criteria for malnutrition. Clin Nutr 36(4):1130–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker LA, Gout BS, Crowe TC (2011) Hospital malnutrition: prevalence, identification and impact on patients and the healthcare system. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8(2):514–527.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020514 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lim SL, Ong KC, Chan YH, Loke WC, Ferguson M, Daniels L (2012) Malnutrition and its impact on cost of hospitalization, length of stay, readmission and 3-year mortality. Clin Nutr 31(3):345–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2011.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Navarro DA, Boaz M, Krause I, Elis A, Chernov K, Giabra M, Levy M, Giboreau A, Kosak S, Mouhieddine M, Singer P (2015) Improved meal presentation increases food intake and decreases readmission rate in hospitalized patients. Clin Nutr 35:1153–1158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2015.09.012. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Löser C (2010) Malnutrition in hospital: the clinical and economic implications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107(51–52):911–917.  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2010.0911. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escamilla DM, Jarrett P (2016) The impact of weight loss on patients with cancer. Nurs Times 112(11):20–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marin Caro MM, Laviano A, Pichard C (2007) Impact of nutrition on quality of life during cancer. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 10(4):480–487.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0b013e3281e2c983 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ravasco P, Monteiro Grillo I, Camilo M (2007) Cancer wasting and quality of life react to early individualized nutritional counselling! Clin Nutr 26(1):7–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2006.10.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ottery FD (1996) Definition of standardized nutritional assessment and interventional pathways in oncology. Nutrition 12(1 Suppl):S15–S19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jager-Wittenaar H, Ottery FD (2017) Assessing nutritional status in cancer: role of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 20(5):322–329.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000000389 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P (2005) 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 8(2):94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sealy MJ, Hass U, Ottery FD, van der Schans CP, Roodenburg JLN, Translation J-WH (2017) Cultural adaptation of the Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assesment: an interdisciplinary nutritional instrument appropriate for Dutch cancer patients. Cancer Nurs 41:450–462.  https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000505. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nitichai N, Angkatavanich J, Somlaw N, Sirichindakul B, Chittawatanarat K, Voravud N, Jager-Wittenaar H, Ottery FD (2017) MON-P187: translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) to the Thai setting. Clin Nutr 36:S247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5614(17)30900-7
  17. 17.
    Sealy MJ, Ottery FD, van der Schans CP, Roodenburg JLN, Jager-Wittenaar H (2018) Evaluation of change in dietitians’ perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) after a single training in the use of the instrument. J Hum Nutr Diet 31(1):58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12491 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinto P, Pinho JP, Vigáio A, Ottery FD, Jager-Wittenaar H (2016) MON-LB258: does training improve perceived comprehensibility, difficulty and content validity of the Portuguese scored PG-SGA? Clin Nutr 35:S247–S2S8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5614(16)30892-5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Comprehensive Cancer CenterLudwig-Maximilian University ClinicMunichGermany
  2. 2.Departement MedizinKantonsspital WinterthurWinterthurSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department GesundheitFachhochschule St. Pölten GmbHSt. PöltenAustria
  4. 4.Department of Nutrition and Gerontology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-RehbrückePotsdam-RehbrückeNuthetalGermany
  5. 5.Research Group on GeriatricsCharite Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Ottery & Associates, LLCVernon HillsUSA
  7. 7.Research Group Healthy Ageing, Allied Health Care and NursingHanze University of Applied SciencesGroningenNetherlands
  8. 8.Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of GroningenUniversity Medical Center GroningenGroningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations