Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2022; 82(07): 747-754
DOI: 10.1055/a-1666-0429
GebFra Science
Original Article/Originalarbeit

The ICHOM Standard Set for Pregnancy and Childbirth – Translation and Linguistic Adaptation for Germany

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Claudia Hartmann
1   Medizinische Klinik m. S. Psychosomatik, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Matthias Rose
1   Medizinische Klinik m. S. Psychosomatik, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Alexander Weichert
2   Klinik für Geburtsmedizin, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Karen Weißhaupt
2   Klinik für Geburtsmedizin, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Das ICHOM-Standardset für Schwangerschaft und Geburt – Übersetzung und sprachliche Anpassung für DeutschlandGeburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2022; 82(07): e36-e36
DOI: 10.1055/a-1906-2842

Abstract

Introduction The gathering of health and quality-of-life issues that matter most to patients over so-called patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a key aspect of patient-centered healthcare. In obstetrics, this approach has the potential to expand the current understanding of what quality entails by including patient perspectives. The International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures (ICHOM), founded in 2012, is a global organization which aims to standardise the collection of PROs and make the results comparable worldwide. A PRO Set for obstetrics, “Pregnancy and Childbirth”, was published in 2018. The aim of our work was to translate the instruments of this set that are not yet available in German into German.

Methods The instruments were translated from English into German using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation method. The translated instruments consisted of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form (BSES-SF), the Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale (MIBS), and the Birth Satisfaction Scale – Revised (BSS-R) as well as a number of individual questions (items).

Results The final version of the German translations were found to be easily comprehensible by the target group. During the cognitive debriefing, it became clear that pregnant women and women who had just given birth often used a number of medically incorrect terms to refer to their symptoms or complaints. In the translations great care was taken to ensure that the wording was as close as possible to the general usage of the language while at the same time the terminology was medically correct. To achieve a precise but comprehensible translation, the response structure of the BSES-SF also had to be adapted.

Conclusions The instruments of the ICHOM Standard Set “Pregnancy and Childbirth”, which were not previously available in German, were successfully translated into German. This meant dealing with a few challenges such as adapting questions or response structures. The cultural and linguistic comprehensibility of the German translations were confirmed during the subsequent cognitive debriefing. The translations offer the possibility of implementing the complete ICHOM Set for Pregnancy and Childbirth. This would provide an opportunity to expand the existing understanding of quality by including the subjective experience of women during and after childbirth and, in future, to compare outcomes with those of other hospitals across the world.

Key words

subjective perception of health - patient-reported outcomes - breastfeeding - early bonding - birth experience

Supporting Information



Publication History

Received: 03 September 2021

Accepted: 09 October 2021

Article published online:
07 July 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 WHO. WHO recommendations: Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018: 200
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V.. Leitlinienprogramm der DGGG e.V., OEGGG e.V. und SGGG e.V.. Accessed May 01, 2020 at: http://www.dggg.de/leitlinien-stellungnahmen/leitlinien/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-based Competition on Results. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 4 NHS, Health and Social Information Centre. Secondary Care Analysis (PROMs) NHS Digital. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England – A guide to PROMs methodology. 2017 . Accessed May 01, 2021 at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ministerie van Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport. Outcome based healthcare 2018 – 2022. Den Haag: Government of the Netherlands; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 6 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 79 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995; 273: 59-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cella D, Riley W, Stone A. et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 1179-1194 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nijagal MA, Wissig S, Stowell C. et al. Standardized outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth, an ICHOM proposal. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 953 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3732-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 77-97 DOI: 10.1007/bf02050307.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Banerjee C, Banerjee M, Hatzmann W. et al. The German version of the ‘ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire’ (German ICIQ-VS): an instrument validation study. Urol Int 2010; 85: 70-79 DOI: 10.1159/000316337.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA. et al. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 873-880 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Zipfel S. et al. Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D). Manual und Testunterlagen. 2. Aufl.. Karlsruhe: Pfizer; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bergant AM, Nguyen T, Heim K. et al. Deutschsprachige Fassung und Validierung der “Edinburgh postpartum depression scale” [German validation of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1998; 123: 35-40 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1023895.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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 DOI: 10.1177/0163278705275342.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Willis G. Analysis of the Cognitive Interview in Questionnaire Design. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Konrad K. Laut Denken. In: Mey G, Mruck K. Hrsg. Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2010: 476-490
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Nespoli A, Colciago E, Pedroni S. et al. The Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R): process of translation and adaptation in an Italian context. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2018; 54: 340-347 DOI: 10.4415/ann_18_04_11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hollins-Martin CJ, Martin C. Development and psychometric properties of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R). Midwifery 2014; 30: 610-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hodnett ED. Pain and womenʼs satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: S160-S172 DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(02)70189-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schäfers R. Einfluss des Geburtserlebens auf die subjektive Gesundheitseinschätzung von Frauen. GMS Z Hebammenwiss 2015; 2: Doc02 DOI: 10.3205/zhwi000005.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rossen L, Mattick RP, Wilson J. et al. Mother-Infant Bonding and Emotional Availability at 12-Months of Age: The Role of Early Postnatal Bonding, Maternal Substance Use and Mental Health. Matern Child Health J 2019; 23: 1686-1698 DOI: 10.1007/s10995-019-02809-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Klaus MH, Kennell JH. Parent/Infant Bonding by Marshall H. Klaus. Michigan: Mosby; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Taylor A, Atkins R, Kumar R. et al. A new Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale: links with early maternal mood. Arch Womens Ment Health 2005; 8: 45-51 DOI: 10.1007/s00737-005-0074-z.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 van Bussel JC, Spitz B, Demyttenaere K. Three self-report questionnaires of the early mother-to-infant bond: reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the MPAS, PBQ and MIBS. Arch Womens Ment Health 2010; 13: 373-384 DOI: 10.1007/s00737-009-0140-z.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Brockington IF, Aucamp HM, Fraser C. Severe disorders of the mother–infant relationship: definitions and frequency. Arch Womens Ment Health 2006; 9: 243-251 DOI: 10.1007/s00737-006-0133-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Michaelsen KF, Weaver L, Branca F. et al. Stillen und Ernährung von Neugeborenen und Kleinkindern. WHO 2003; 87: 146 Accessed November 17, 2021 at: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/98302/WS_115_2000FE.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 von der Lippe E, Brettschneider AK, Gutsche J. et al. [Factors influencing the prevalence and duration of breastfeeding in Germany: results of the KiGGS study: first follow up (KiGGS Wave 1)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2014; 57: 849-859 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-014-1985-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kersting M, Hockamp N, Burak C. et al. Studie zur Erhebung von Daten zum Stillen und zur Säuglingsernährung in Deutschland – SuSe II. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, Hrsg. 14. DGE-Ernährungsbericht. Vorveröffentlichung Kapitel 3. Bonn (2020) V1 – V34
    Google Scholar