A systematic review of the translation and validation methods used for the national comprehensive cancer network distress thermometer in non-English speaking countries.

OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) distress thermometer (DT) was developed as a brief screening tool for detecting distress in cancer patients. Conceptually, distress was considered a more acceptable and inclusive term than other psychological terms such as depression or anxiety. It is used extensively in the United States and other English-speaking countries. We aim to describe the translation and validation methods of the DT and describe the recommended cutoff scores used to identify cancer patients experiencing clinically significant distress. METHODS: Nine bibliographic databases were searched using keywords to identify original research studies for non-English speaking countries' cancer patients. Full articles were independently assessed for inclusion and data extraction by two authors. RESULTS: The review of 4442 articles yielded 39 articles that validated the DT. We identified 20 languages in 25 countries. In all but one country, investigators were able to agree upon a word or phrase that meant distress in their native language that was subsequently validated against standardized instruments. Asian, Middle Eastern and European counties recommended cutoff score of 4 or 5 to identify clinically significant distress; however, European Union countries had a range of 2 to 7. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the translated DT with non-English speaking cancer patients provides a simple and quick tool to identify high distress. Similar to NCCN, the cutoff score of 4 or 5 was suggested by 78% of the studies; however, more studies of different types of cancer and within and among more countries will strengthen a recommended global DT cutoff score.

Clinician Needs for Electronic Health Record Pediatric and Adolescent Weight Management Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians play an important role in addressing pediatric and adolescent obesity, but their effectiveness is restricted by time constraints, competing clinical demands, and the lack of effective electronic health record (EHR) tools. EHR tools are rarely developed with provider input. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a mixed method study of clinicians who provide weight management care to children and adolescents to determine current barriers for effective care and explore the role of EHR weight management tools to overcome these barriers. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we conducted three 1-hour long virtual focus groups at one medium-sized academic health center in Missouri and analyzed the focus group scripts using thematic analysis. We sequentially conducted a descriptive statistical analysis of a survey emailed to pediatric and family medicine primary care clinicians (n = 52) at two private and two academic health centers in Missouri. RESULTS: Surveyed clinicians reported that they effectively provided health behavior lifestyle counseling at well-child visits (mean of 60 on a scale of 1-100) and child obesity visits (63); however, most felt the current health care system (27) and EHR tools (41) do not adequately support pediatric weight management. Major themes from the clinician focus groups were that EHR weight management tools should display data in a way that (1) improves clinical efficiency, (2) supports patient-centered communication, (3) improves patient continuity between visits, and (4) reduces documentation burdens. An additional theme was (5) clinicians trust patient data entered in real time over patient recalled data. CONCLUSION: Study participants report that the health care system status quo and currently available EHR tools do not sufficiently support clinicians working to manage pediatric or adolescent obesity and provide health behavior counseling. Clinician input in the development and testing of EHR weight management tools provides opportunities to address barriers, inform content, and improve efficiencies of EHR use.

Community coalitions and prevention: a panel discussion.

On January 20, 2004, at the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) National Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C., joined with CADCA to sponsor a panel discussion on the possibilities of science-based prevention. CADCA represents some 5,000 local drug abuse prevention agencies; its National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute seeks to foster its members' use of appropriate standards for evaluation and research.