Cross-cultural adaption of the Health Educaiton Impact Questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value

Objectives
To assess the contribution of back-translation and expert committee to the content and psychometric properties of a translated multidimensional questionnaire.

Study Design and Setting
Recommendations for questionnaire translation include back-translation and expert committee, but their contribution to measurement properties is unknown. Four English to French translations of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire were generated with and without committee or back-translation. Face validity, acceptability, and structural properties were compared after random assignment to people with rheumatoid arthritis (N = 1,168), chronic renal failure (N = 2,368), and diabetes (N = 538). For face validity, 15 bilingual people compared translations quality with the original. Psychometric properties were examined using confirmatory factor analysis (metric and scalar invariance) and item response theory.

Results
Qualitatively, there were five types of translation errors: style, intensity, frequency/time frame, breadth, and meaning. Bilingual assessors ranked best the translations with committee (P = 0.0026). All translations had good structural properties (root mean square error of approximation <0.05; comparative fit index [CFI], ≥0.899; and Tucker–Lewis index, ≥0.889). Full measurement invariance was observed between translations (ΔCFI ≤ 0.01) with metric invariance between translations and original (lowest ΔCFI = 0.022 between fully constrained models and models with free intercepts). Item characteristic curve analyses revealed no significant differences.

Conclusion
This is the first experimental evidence that back-translation has moderate impact, whereas expert committee helps to ensure accurate content.

Who is responsible for the public's health? The role of the alcohol industry in the WHO global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol

In this editorial the Editors of Addiction join over 500 public health leaders and 27 organizations in their endorsement of the ‘Statement of Concern’ addressed to the Director General of the World Health Organization. The Editors support the Statement’s contention that the global alcohol industry should have no role in the formulation of public health policies.

Investigating the media power of a population health monitoring survey: case study of the NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS)

Objective
To examine the extent and nature of news coverage of a government-funded population monitoring survey of children and the potential implications of this coverage for public health advocacy.

Methods
Case study of the NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS), a population monitoring survey of school-aged children's weight and weight-related behaviours, conducted in 1997, 2004 and 2010. Printed news items from all Australian newspapers between January 1997 and December 2011 mentioning the survey findings were identified from the Factiva database and a descriptive analysis of the content conducted.

Results
Overall, 144 news items were identified. The news angles focused mainly on physical activity/sedentary behaviour; overweight/obesity and nutrition; however these angles changed between 1997 and 2011, with angles focused on physical activity/sedentary behaviour increasing, compared with overweight/obesity and nutrition angles (p=0.001). Responsibility for obesity and weight-related behaviours was most frequently assigned to parents and food marketing, and the most common solutions were policy strategies and parental/child education and support.

Conclusions
Population health surveys are newsworthy and when coupled with strategic dissemination, media can contribute to communicating health issues and interpreting findings in ways that are relevant for consumers, policy makers and stakeholders.

Implications
This case study emphasises the news value of government-funded population surveys, while providing a cautionary note about media focus on individual studies rather than a larger body of research evidence.