Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40181635›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Translation and Psychometric Evaluation in Cancer Care of the German Version of collaboRATE

Pola Hahlweg, Stefan Zeh, Isabelle Scholl, Jördis Zill, Jörg Dirmaier, Paul James Barr, Glyn Elwyn, Martin Härter

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Pola HahlwegDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8768-8594
Stefan ZehDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jördis ZillDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jörg DirmaierDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Paul James BarrThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Glyn ElwynThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe collaboRATE

methodsTranslation followed the TRAPD protocol. Comprehensibility was tested in cognitive interviews with lay people (N = 18). Psychometric properties were evaluated in a secondary analysis of a sample of 1703 patients with cancer. They rated the collaboRATE items to assess their care experience in general at the respective department of one large university medical centre. We calculated collaboRATE sum and top scores and assessed item characteristics (i.e., acceptance and ceiling effects), convergent validity with the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 for one specific medical encounter) and satisfaction with care (single item), and divergent validity with psychosocial distress (NCCN distress thermometer). Completion rates, percentages of highest score, skewness, item endorsability and different correlation coefficients informed the evaluation of these psychometric properties.

resultsDuring translation and cognitive interviewing, the necessity to simplify sentence structures to enhance comprehensibility became apparent. Adaptations led to good comprehensibility. The mean collaboRATE sum score was 82.9 (SD = 19.3), with 466 participants (28.9%) indicating the top score. Item characteristics suggested good acceptability and ceiling effects. Correlations with SDM-Q-9 were lower than expected (sum score: r = 0.47, p < 0.001; top score: pbr = 0.27, p < 0.001). Correlations were as expected for satisfaction with care (sum score: r

conclusionA well-comprehensible German version of collaboRATE is now available. However, ceiling effects were found and convergent validity could not be established in a secondary analysis of a sample from cancer care. Further evaluation is needed regarding the psychometric properties of German collaboRATE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in developing the original English collaboRATE and testing the comprehensibility of German collaboRATE. Patients with cancer provided data for psychometric testing.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslatingTranslationscultural adaptationmeasurementpatient‐reported experience measurespsychometric testingshared decision‐makingtranslation

Identifiers

PMID40181635
PMCPMC11968779

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.