Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34919577›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Translating best practice into real practice: Methods, results and lessons from a project to translate an English sexual health survey into four Asian languages.

Daniel Vujcich, Meagan Roberts, Zhihong Gu, Shih-Chi Kao, Roanna Lobo, Limin Mao, Enaam Oudih, Nang Nge Nge Phoo, Horas Wong, Alison Reid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Strategies for Recruiting Migrants to Participate in a Sexual Health Survey: Methods, Results, and Lessons.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Daniel VujcichSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4849-4444
Meagan RobertsSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Zhihong GuEthnic Communities Council of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Shih-Chi KaoHIV and Related Programs Unit, Population Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Roanna LoboSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8335-3017
Limin MaoCentre for Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Enaam OudihRelationships Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Nang Nge Nge PhooSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Horas WongCentre for Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alison ReidSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMigrants are underrepresented in population health surveys. Offering translated survey instruments has been shown to increase migrant representation. While 'team translation' represents current best practice, there are relatively few published examples describing how it has been implemented. The purpose of this paper is to document the process, results and lessons from a project to translate an English-language sexual health and blood-borne virus survey into Khmer, Karen, Vietnamese and Traditional Chinese.

methodsThe approach to translation was based on the TRAPD (Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation) model. The English-language survey was sent to two accredited, independent translators. At least one bilingual person was chosen to review and compare the translations and preferred translations were selected through consensus. Agreed translations were pretested with small samples of individuals fluent in the survey language and further revisions made.

resultsOf the 51 survey questions, only nine resulted in identical independent translations in at least one language. Material differences between the translations related to: (1) the translation of technical terms and medical terminology (e.g. HIV); (2) variations in dialect; and (3) differences in cultural understandings of survey concepts (e.g. committed relationships).

conclusionSurvey translation is time-consuming and costly and, as a result, deviations from TRAPD 'best practice' occurred. It is not possible to determine whether closer adherence to TRAPD 'best practice' would have improved the quality of the resulting translations. However, our study does demonstrate that even adaptations of the TRAPD method can identify issues that may not have been apparent had non-team-based or single-round translation approaches been adopted. Given the dearth of clear empirical evidence about the most accurate and feasible method of undertaking translations, we encourage future researchers to follow our example of making translation data publicly available to enhance transparency and enable critical appraisal.

Indexed as

Health SurveysSexual HealthTranslatingHumansLanguagePractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID34919577
PMCPMC8682877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.