Bladder cancer index: cross-cultural adaptation into Spanish and psychometric evaluation

BACKGROUND: The Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) is so far the only instrument applicable across all bladder cancer patients, independent of tumor infiltration or treatment applied. We developed a Spanish version of the BCI, and assessed its acceptability and metric properties. METHODS: For the adaptation into Spanish we used the forward and back-translation method, expert panels, and cognitive debriefing patient interviews. For the assessment of metric properties we used data from 197 bladder cancer patients from a multi-center prospective study. The Spanish BCI and the SF-36 Health Survey were self-administered before and 12 months after treatment. Reliability was estimated by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed through the multi-trait multi-method matrix. The magnitude of change was quantified by effect sizes to assess responsiveness. RESULTS: Reliability coefficients ranged 0.75-0.97. The validity analysis confirmed moderate associations between the BCI function and bother subscales for urinary (r = 0.61) and bowel (r = 0.53) domains; conceptual independence among all BCI domains (r ≤ 0.3); and low correlation coefficients with the SF-36 scores, ranging 0.14-0.48. Among patients reporting global improvement at follow-up, pre-post treatment changes were statistically significant for the urinary domain and urinary bother subscale, with effect sizes of 0.38 and 0.53. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish BCI is well accepted, reliable, valid, responsive, and similar in performance compared to the original instrument. These findings support its use, both in Spanish and international studies, as a valuable and comprehensive tool for assessing quality of life across a wide range of bladder cancer patients

Clinical Validation of Digital Healthcare Solutions: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities

Digital health technologies (DHTs) at the intersection of health, medical informatics, and business aim to enhance patient care through personalised digital approaches. Ensuring the efficacy and reliability of these innovations demands rigorous clinical validation. A PubMed literature review (January 2006 to July 2023) identified 1250 papers, highlighting growing academic interest. A focused narrative review (January 2018 to July 2023) delved into challenges, highlighting issues such as diverse regulatory landscapes, adoption issues in complex healthcare systems, and a plethora of evaluation frameworks lacking pragmatic guidance. Existing frameworks often omit crucial criteria, neglect empirical evidence, and clinical effectiveness is rarely included as a criterion for DHT quality. The paper underscores the urgency of addressing challenges in accreditation, adoption, business models, and integration to safeguard the quality, efficacy, and safety of DHTs. A pivotal illustration of collaborative efforts to address these challenges is exemplified by the Digital Health Validation Center, dedicated to generating clinical evidence of innovative healthcare technologies and facilitating seamless technology transfer. In conclusion, it is necessary to harmonise evaluation approaches and frameworks, improve regulatory clarity, and commit to collaboration to integrate rigorous clinical validation and empirical evidence throughout the DHT life cycle