BackgroundResearch questionnaires are not always translated appropriately before they are used in new temporal, cultural or linguistic settings. The results based on such instruments may therefore not accurately reflect what they are supposed to measure. This paper aims to illustrate the process and required steps involved in the cross-cultural adaptation of a research instrument using the adaptation process of an attitudinal instrument as an example.MethodsA questionnaire was needed for the implementation of a study in Norway 2007. There was no appropriate instruments available in Norwegian, thus an Australian-English instrument was cross-culturally adapted.ResultsThe adaptation process included investigation of conceptual and item equivalence. Two forward and two back-translations were synthesized and compared by an expert committee. Thereafter the instrument was pretested and adjusted accordingly. The final questionnaire was administered to opioid maintenance treatment staff (n=140) and harm reduction staff (n=180). The overall response rate was 84%. The original instrument failed confirmatory analysis. Instead a new two-factor scale was identified and found valid in the new setting.ConclusionsThe failure of the original scale highlights the importance of adapting instruments to current research settings. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that concepts within an instrument are equal between the original and target language, time and context. If the described stages in the cross-cultural adaptation process had been omitted, the findings would have been misleading, even if presented with apparent precision. Thus, it is important to consider possible barriers when making a direct comparison between different nations, cultures and times.

No abstract

No abstract

An admission cohort of 296 Australian methadone maintenance patients was followed over 15 years. The relative risks of death in and out of maintenance were calculated for two age groups, 20-29 and 30-39 years. Heroin addicts in both age groups were one-quarter as likely to die while receiving methadone maintenance as addicts not in treatment. This is because they were significantly less likely to die by heroin overdose or suicide while in maintenance. Methadone maintenance had no measurable effect on the risk of death through nonheroin overdose, violence or trauma, or natural causes. A meta-analysis showed the reduction in overall mortality was consistent with the results of cohort studies conducted in the United States, Sweden, and Germany. The combined results of the five studies again indicated that methadone maintenance reduced addicts' risk of death to a quarter, RR 0.25 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.33).

A long-term follow-up was made of a cohort of 307 heroin addicts admitted into a high-dose, Australian methadone maintenance programme in the early 1970s. Using data from clinic records, official death records and methadone treatment histories, it was found that subjects were nearly three times as likely to die outside of methadone maintenance as in it (95% CI RR 1.45 to 5.61). Data were further analyzed using Cox regression to investigate the association of maximum daily methadone dose and a change in clinic policy with retention in maintenance treatment. It is estimated that subjects given a maximum daily dose of 80 mg were nearly twice as likely to be discharged during the first three years of maintenance as those given 120 mg (95% CI RR 1.3 to 2.2). The estimated median time in maintenance for subjects given a maximum dose of 120 mg was 1150 days while for 80 mg it was 660 days. It is further estimated that the change in clinic policy from abstinence to indefinite maintenance reduced to one-third subjects' risk of leaving after three years' of treatment (95% CI RR 0.19 to 0.54). It is concluded that, in order to minimize heroin addicts' risk of death, they should be offered indefinite, high-dose methadone maintenance.