ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Swedish translation and cultural adaptation of the General Well-Being Schedule for patients with olfactory and hearing dysfunction.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Quality of life (QoL) is largely determined by our psychological well-being, yet commonly used somatic QoL measures often emphasize physical symptoms. Consequently, psychological needs in individuals who lack physical comorbidities are often overlooked. The General Well-Being Schedule (GWB) is a validated tool for assessing well-being, without focusing on physical dysfunction or being disease specific. As sensory impairments are strongly linked to reduced QoL, a Swedish GWB could have substantial clinical value. Objective: To translate and culturally adapt the GWB into Swedish following the guidelines of the International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), and to establish adequate content validity of the resulting instrument. Methods: The GWB was translated into Swedish from English by following the ISPOR guidelines. Forward and backward translations were performed. Both healthcare professionals and patients with olfactory or hearing disorders contributed their opinions on the translation through focus groups, interviews, and ratings. Based on their input, we calculated the Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) and the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), to measure the questionnaire's overall content validity and the content validity of each item, respectively. Results: The focus groups and interviews resulted in several linguistic and cultural adjustments. Content validity was excellent for the questionnaire as a whole with an S-CVI of 0.91. Out of the 18 questions, 16 had an excellent I-CVI (mean = 0.94). Conclusion: The GWB was successfully translated and culturally adapted for use in Sweden, following the ISPOR guidelines. The excellent content validity of the translation supports the relevance of the translated instrument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.