Dutch translation and cultural adaptation of new LYMPH-Q- scales measuring impact on work and lymphedema worry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a significant complication of breast cancer treatment that can impact patients’ quality of life. This study focuses on the translation and cultural adaptation of two new LYMPH-Q scales ‘Impact on Work’ and ‘Lymphedema worry’ into Dutch to assess the work-related challenges and worries experienced by patients with BCRL in the Netherlands. Methods The translation process followed established guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Forward and back translations, expert panel reviews, cognitive debriefing interviews with patients with BCRL, and proofreading were conducted to refine the Dutch translation of the scales. The translation aimed to ensure conceptual equivalence and cultural relevance. Results The translation process resulted in the Dutch versions of the LYMPH-Q ‘Impact on Work’ and ‘Lymphedema worry’ scales. The forward translation revealed discrepancies in meaning, word order and synonyms. The back translation and review resulted in changes in item formulation. The expert panel meeting and cognitive debriefing interviews provided valuable input for further refinement. Conclusion The translated LYMPH-Q ‘Impact on Work’ and ‘Lymphedema worry’ scales provide healthcare professionals with an instrument to assess and monitor the impact of BCRL on work-related challenges and on worries. This comprehensive translation process, involving patients with BCRL and experts, ensured the linguistic accuracy, cultural relevance, and clarity of the Dutch versions. The translated scales will contribute to a better understanding of the multifaceted impact of BCRL and facilitate the development of tailored interventions to improve patients’ well-being and functional outcomes. Level of Evidence: Not ratable
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".