Japanese Translation and Validation of the Environmental Assessment Tool–Higher Care

Brennan, Sumiyo; Doan, Therese; Bennett, Kirsty; Hashimoto, Yumiko; Fleming, Richard

doi:10.1177/19375867211007856

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are supported by research on other cross-cultural adaptations of the G-EAT. Brennan et al (2021) report for the adapted Japanese version (EAT-HC-JV) that cultural design elements such as foot baths or a tea ceremony room cannot be depicted with the original list of items [21]. Similar findings are reported by Sun and Fleming (2021) for the Singaporean version.…”

Section: Reflecting Cultural Differences In Germany and Australiasupporting

confidence: 56%

“…[13]. In accordance with the adapted versions of the EAT-HC for Singapore [20] and Japan [21], a multistep translation process of the instrument for the German context took place according to the guidelines of the World Health Organization (1998) [22]. Potential users of the future instrument from dementia-related health care research and dementia care were involved in the process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feasibility, Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency of the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)

Fahsold

Schmüdderich

Verbeek

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dementia-specific environmental design has the potential to positively influence capabilities for daily living and quality of life in people with dementia living in nursing homes. To date, no reliable instrument exists for systematically assessing the adequacy of these built environments in Germany. This study aimed to test the adapted version of the Environmental Audit Tool—High Care (EAT-HC)—the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)—with regard to its feasibility, interrater reliability and internal consistency. The G-EAT was applied as a paper-pencil version in the German setting; intraclass correlation coefficients at the subscale level ranged from 0.662 (III) to 0.869 (IV), and 42% of the items showed at least substantial agreement (Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.60). The results indicate the need to develop supplementary material in a manual that illustrates the meaning of the items and practical implications regarding dementia-specific environmental design. Furthermore, the intersectionality of built and physical environments must be considered when interpreting G-EAT results in future research and applications to residential long-term care practice.

show abstract

Section: Reflecting Cultural Differences In Germany and Australiasupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility, Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency of the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)

Fahsold

Schmüdderich

Verbeek

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, 56 articles were selected to answer our research question. These articles described a total of seven distinctive innovative living arrangements: (1) small-scale living [ 15 , 16 , 18 , 29 – 39 ], (2) the green house model [ 40 – 47 ], (3) shared housing arrangements [ 48 – 54 ], (4) green care farms [ 20 , 55 – 61 ], (5) dementia villages [ 40 , 62 – 66 ], (6) group homes [ 67 – 69 ], and (7) intergenerational living [ 70 – 72 ]. Some articles, however, could not be grouped into one overarching living arrangement because they did not describe the same overarching elements (a household model of residential aged care [ 73 ], household model units [ 74 , 75 ], intensive service housing [ 76 ], a non-traditional residential care facility [ 77 ], the Woodside place model [ 78 ], a small-scale homelike unit [ 79 ], and a homelike dementia care facility [ 80 ]) and were described as an ‘other’ category.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of innovative living arrangements within long-term care and their characteristics: a scoping review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Within long-term care, a culture change (e.g. focus on increasing autonomy in everyday life) is leading to the development of innovative living arrangements for older adults. Insight into characteristics of innovative living arrangements, which are described as an alternative to regular nursing homes, is lacking. This review aims to provide an overview of innovative living arrangements and to describe their defining characteristics. Methods A scoping review was performed following the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses with extension, for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was also followed. The databases PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched. Articles, published between 2012 and 2023 were included when they presented an innovative living arrangement as an alternative to regular nursing homes. A thematic analysis was performed, describing the physical, social, and organizational environment of the innovative living arrangements. Results Fifty-six articles were identified describing seven types of distinct innovative living arrangements: small-scale living, the green house model, shared housing arrangements, green care farms, dementia villages, group homes, intergenerational living, and an ‘other’ category. The themes included supporting autonomy and creating a small-scale and/or homelike environment, which were emphasized in most innovative living arrangements. Other themes, such as involvement of the community, focus on nature, integration of work tasks, and involvement of family members, were emphasized in a subsection of the described living arrangements. Twenty-eight articles reported on the effects of the innovative living environment on residents, family members, or staff members. Most articles (N = 22) studied resident-related outcomes, focusing mainly on quality of life and aspects of daily life. Conclusion More insight into the mechanisms of the social and organizational environments is needed, which may lead to greater transparency and homogeneity regarding the description of living arrangements. This review shows that more knowledge is needed about the potential key elements of innovative living arrangements, especially related to their social and organizational environment. This may provide a better guide for developers within long-term care.

show abstract

“…A comparison of the test results of each instrument version is reported elsewhere (Brennan et al, 2022). Detailed explanations of the individual steps are provided in the original studies (Brennan et al, 2021; Fahsold et al, 2022; Sun & Fleming, 2021). All steps followed the superior goals of (1) translation, (2) linguistic validation, and (3) cross-cultural adaptation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting the Australian Environmental Assessment Tool—High Care (EAT-HC): Experiences and Practical Implications From Germany, Japan, and Singapore

Fahsold

Brennan

Doan

et al. 2022

HERD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Assessing the built environment in nursing homes is part of several established instruments. Measurements are primarily published in English, so there is a need for cross-cultural adaptation to be able to use them in other countries. This procedure should be carried out alongside translation guidelines to ensure successful adaptation not only for assessments that capture complex constructs, such as the built environment, but also for assessments to be applied in healthcare in general. Objective: This article presents different approaches to adopt the Australian Environmental Assessment Tool—High Care (EAT-HC) based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for instrument translation. The comparison of these processes should provide implications for further adaptations of the instrument. Methods: The adaptation processes carried out in Germany, Japan, and Singapore were compared using thematic analysis. Steps taken to achieve linguistic validation and to adopt the tool were analyzed qualitatively in the context of overarching needs for adjustment. Results: Every perspective adapted the WHO guidelines for their respective purposes of applying the EAT-HC. The order of steps varied, but elements to validate the results with the instruments’ creators and to ensure validity were included in all three countries. For items that might be challenging, we detected possible reasons that might help future adaptors manage this process more efficiently. Conclusion: The EAT-HC benefits from adaptation alongside the WHO guidelines in terms of enhancing the quality of translation and feasibility of application. Individual supplementary adaptation steps allow the identification of culture-specific needs for application in other countries.

show abstract

Japanese Translation and Validation of the Environmental Assessment Tool–Higher Care

Cited by 11 publications

References 47 publications

Feasibility, Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency of the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)

Feasibility, Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency of the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)

An overview of innovative living arrangements within long-term care and their characteristics: a scoping review

Adapting the Australian Environmental Assessment Tool—High Care (EAT-HC): Experiences and Practical Implications From Germany, Japan, and Singapore

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About