Keywords translation - lymphedema - international classification of functioning - disability
and health
Palavras-chave tradução - linfedema - classificação internacional de funcionalidade - incapacidade
e saúde
Introduction
Lower-limb lymphedema is a frequent complication of cancer treatment.[1 ]
[2 ]
[3 ]
[4 ] It is characterized by the reduced absorption of protein-rich interstitial fluid
caused by obstruction of the lymphatic system, which mainly occurs following the removal
of the lymphatic collecting vessels and lymph nodes as a result of tumor invasion,
radiotherapy, chemotherapy, wound healing problems, or infection.[5 ]
[6 ]
[7 ]
Established lower-limb lymphedema is associated with considerable functional, social,
and mental changes that impair the quality of life of the affected individuals.[8 ]
[9 ] Patients with lymphedema exhibit symptoms such as swelling, feelings of heaviness,
pain, and discomfort, which significantly reduce their physical functioning, mobility,
and ability to perform activities of daily life. These patients also exhibit mental
and emotional concerns, commonly including increased levels of anguish, feelings of
helplessness, fear of the possible progression of disease, and adverse changes in
body image and self-esteem.[10 ]
Complex physical therapy (CPT) is the standard treatment for lymphedema; it works
by minimizing and controlling the limb volume.[11 ] However, the functional and mental problems caused by lymphedema might persist even
when therapeutic intervention is adequate.[8 ]
Accurate knowledge of human functioning (body functions, activities, and participation)
and disability (impairments, activity limitations, or restrictions to participation)
are essential to assess the functioning of individuals in various situations in life.[12 ] The World Health Organization (WHO) developed the International Classification of
Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), which describes functioning and disability
related to health conditions. It assesses the function of organs and body structures
as well as a person's restrictions to social participation relative to the environment
where he or she lives.[13 ]
[14 ]
However, one of the main difficulties in applying ICF to clinical practice is the
lack of validated instruments to measure the complexity of the processes involved
in functioning and in the main disabilities associated with each particular health
situation. In this regard, studies are currently aimed at identifying instruments
likely to be used in the cancer care context, relative to both clinical practice and
research protocols.[15 ]
[16 ]
[17 ]
[18 ]
[19 ]
[20 ]
[21 ]
This is a multicenter study involving patients with lower-limb lymphedema that sought
to develop the Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability, and Health Questionnaire for Lower
Limb Lymphoedema (Lymph-ICF-LL). This instrument seeks to assess problems related
to functioning, such as impairments in functions, activity limitations, and restriction
to participation. It exhibited satisfactory validity and reliability when it was applied
to a European population.[22 ]
The aim of the present study was to translate and perform the cross-cultural adaptation
of the Lymph-ICF-LL into (Brazilian) Portuguese.
Methods
The present study consisted of the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the
Lymph-ICF-LL. Nele Devoogdt, the first author of the original version, granted authorization
for translation.[22 ]
The Lymph-ICF-LL comprises 28 questions; it was developed based on information collected
from patients with primary and secondary lower-limb lymphedema. The respondents are
requested to score their responses on an 11-point numerical scale (from 0 to 10).
For each question, the respondents indicate the number that best describes their situation.
The score ranges from “0” (zero), indicating that the patient does not have any problem
related to the described complaint, to “10,” indicating that the patient has very
serious problems in regard to the described complaint. The response option “non-applicable”
should be selected whenever a given complaint does not apply to the respondent. The
questions are distributed across three domains: physical function, mental function
and mobility.[22 ] The process of translation and adaptation of the Lymph-ICF-LL comprised 5 steps:
translation, back translation, revision by an expert panel, pretest, and final translation.[23 ]
[24 ]
The initial translation from English into Portuguese was independently performed by
two translators with experience in oncology and lymphology who were aware of the study
aims. The two translations (T1 and T2) were merged into a single translation (T1/T2)
by the main researchers. The combined version was independently back-translated into
English by two translators (BT1 and BT2) who were blinded to the study aims.
The expert panel, composed of 17 professionals from three different Brazilian states
(São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Paraná), was contacted via a SurveyMonkey platform and was requested to compare the two back-translated versions (BT1 and BT2)
to the original version and to indicate potential flaws in translation. Thus, the
first Brazilian version of the instrument (BV1) was elaborated. In this version, the
response option “non-applicable” was added to all of the questions in which it was
not present, and in the questions already including the option “non-applicable,” the
answer option “I didn't understand this question” was added.
The BV1 was subjected to pretest on 10 individuals with lymphedema; these patients
had lower-limb lymphedema secondary to cancer, without active neoplastic disease and
had finished elementary school at minimum. Patients with visual or cognitive impairments
that prevented them from reading and understanding the questionnaire were excluded,
as were patients who were unable to walk and patients who refused to sign an informed
consent form.
We collected data relative to demographic (gender, age, marital status) and clinical
(date of diagnosis of lymphedema, degree of lymphedema) variables to characterize
the studied population. We performed a descriptive analysis by means of measures of
central tendency and variance (continuous variables) and absolute and relative frequencies
(dichotomous variables). We described the scores on the BV1 as means and standard
deviations (SD).
Questions that received the responses “non-applicable” or “I didn't understand this
question” in the pretest were reevaluated by the expert panel for semantics (transfer
of the meaning of the concepts in the original instrument's questions to the new version),
idiomatic equivalence (whether idioms and colloquialisms were correctly translated),
and cultural (whether the questionnaire items seek to grasp the experience of daily
life) and conceptual equivalence (to analyze concepts and the meaning of words within
the English and Brazilian cultural contexts).[23 ]
[24 ] This step was also performed via a SurveyMonkey platform.
The proportion of concordance among the panel experts relative to semantics and idiomatic,
cultural and conceptual equivalence was assessed by means of the content validity
index (CVI) using a Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 4): 1 = item is not relevant or
representative; 2 = item requires major revisions to become representative; 3 = item
requires minor revisions to become representative; and 4 = item is relevant or representative.
The CVI was calculated by adding the items attributed scores of 3 and 4 and dividing
by the total number of responses.[25 ] The principal researchers assessed by consensus the expert panel responses and made
the final changes in the translated instrument, which was thus considered the final
Brazilian translated version (BVF).
The study design complied with the regulations included in the National Health Council
resolution no. 466/2012 and was approved by the research and ethics committee of the
National Cancer Institute (Instituto Nacional de Câncer - INCA), Certificate of Presentation
for Ethical Appraisal (Certficado de Apresentação para Apreciação Ética – CAAE) no.
35272614.0.0000.5274. All of the participants (panel experts and patients) were informed
of the study aims and signed an informed consent form.
Results
The original version of the Lymph-ICF-LL was translated (T1/T2) and back-translated,
and changes were made in its title and in the instructions to respondents by the expert
panel (supplementary material #1). Small differences were found in some words in the
translated versions after comparison to the back-translated versions, without any
change in meaning. According to the expert panel evaluation, changes were made in
the instructions to respondents in version T1/T2, resulting in the BV1. When there
were no suggested changes, we kept the text from version T1/T2.
Relative to the Lymph-ICF-LL questions, the frequency of the items that required revision
after evaluation by the expert panel is graphically represented in [Fig. 1 ]. Approximately 10% of the questions in the translated version (T1/T2) required changes
according to the evaluation performed by the expert panel.
Fig. 1 Expert panel's evaluation of translated version (T1/T2).
Differences between the back-translated version and the original version were found
regarding some symptoms of lymphedema, which were changed by the principal researchers
by consensus (supplementary material #2). These were very small changes and concerned
idiomatic equivalence only.
Ten women with an average age of 54 years (SD = 12.27) were included in the pretest;
50% were married. Half of the women had lymphedema secondary to treatment for gynecological
cancer, and the other half were receiving treatment for melanoma, with 20% of the
women in lower limb lymphedema stage 1, 40% in stage 2, 30% in stage 3, and 10% in
stage 4. Lymphedema had been diagnosed an average of 2.6 years (SD = 4.94) earlier.
Ten of the questions in the Lymph-ICF-LL were rated difficult to understand, and 7
were rated as “non-applicable” (supplementary material #3).
After the pretest, the expert panel only evaluated again the questions that the participants
rated as difficult to understand (supplementary material #4). The panel assessed those
questions based on the CVI and reported most of them as relevant and representative
([Fig. 2 ]). Five consensus questions judged relevant by the panel were revised, leading to
the final Brazilian version (supplementary material #5).
Fig. 2 Evaluation of BV1 after pretest.
Discussion
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments that assess the state of
health of different populations allow for a better knowledge of various cultures;
in addition, they also contribute to health public policies.[12 ]
Cross-cultural adaptation is a necessary methodology that aims to achieve equivalence
between the original and other languages. Thus, both translation and cross-cultural
adaptation must maintain content validity of the instrument in the different languages.[26 ]
The translated versions, T1 and T2, of the Lymph-ICF-LL title and instructions to
respondents were similar, and no changes were required upon merging them into the
single version, T1/T2. This was not the case for the back translation, which exhibited
small differences in referential meaning, particularly in the case of the questions
related to the symptoms of lymphedema; however, the back translation did not display
any loss in general meaning.
According to another author,[27 ] these results show that as a rule, the problems become manifest when back-translating
a sentence into the original language. For that reason, the performance of two independent
translations is important because it broadens the scope of options for the elaboration
of a new version of the translated questionnaire.
The BV1 of the title and questions required changing the text of ∼10% of the questions
because of problems in their idiomatic equivalence. After the pretest, the participants
rated 10 questions as difficult to understand; these questions were reassessed by
the expert panel, and 5 of the questions were revised and modified by the main researchers
by consensus. Once the process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation was complete,
the results of the assessment of the questionnaire semantics and idiomatic, cultural,
and conceptual equivalence enabled the creation of an instrument that requires validation
in different Brazilian populations.
The present study has several limitations; the main limitation results from the inclusion
of patients with lymphedema secondary to cancer treatment only. To minimize such bias,
we selected the specialists involved from different Brazilian areas, but all of the
specialists had considerable experience in the care of patients with lymphedema by
various causes. Nevertheless, it is recommended to apply the questionnaire to Brazilian
patients with lower-limb lymphedema by different causes to establish its reliability
and validity.
