Development of a French Version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised: A Pilot Study of Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r) is a nine-item self-report symptom intensity tool developed for palliative care patients, with the option of adding a 10th patient-specific symptom. Due to growing international uptake, the ESAS-r has been translated into different languages. There has not been agreement, however, regarding a standard process for translation into multiple languages, which also includes patients' perspectives. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a French version of the ESAS-r, using a standardized translation protocol, and to obtain palliative care patients' perspectives regarding this translated tool. DESIGN: We developed a French version of the ESAS-r, using a standard translation method, involving both professional translators (n = 2) and bilingual palliative care experts (n = 3). Fifteen Francophone participants recruited from palliative care sites in two urban centers in Canada completed the ESAS-r and provided feedback on the translation, in the presence of a trained interviewer. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Fifteen Francophone participants were recruited from palliative care sites in two urban centers in Canada. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed the ESAS-r and provided feedback on the translation in the presence of a trained interviewer. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. RESULTS: Based on participants' concerns, translations for four of the nine symptoms were revised: drowsiness, nausea, lack of appetite, and shortness of breath. Concerns expressed for three additional symptoms (depression, anxiety, and well-being) were related to overall difficulty rating these symptoms, not specific to the translation. CONCLUSION: The French version of the ESAS-r is a credible tool for symptom assessment in Francophone patients. The study findings provide a vital step in the development of a standardized translation protocol, including patients' perspectives, which can be applied to other languages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".