Development of Authorized Translation of “WHO Definition of Palliative Care”: Collaboration of 18 Academic Medical Societies in Japan Using Delphi Method

Objective: To create an authorized translation of the “definition of palliative care” according to WHO using the Delphi method. Methods: Through a palliative care association council (hereafter referred to as the “council”) composed of 18 academic organizations, this research aimed to create an authorized translation draft and develop a consensus for it using the Delphi method according to 54 experts, three from each organization. The main clause and nine subordinate clauses of the document were evaluated from “not at all appropriate” (1 point) to “completely appropriate” (9 points). The standard for consensus was if the median was 7 points or above, or if there was a difference of 5 points or less between the maximum and minimum. The council created an authorized translation in light of the consensus status. Results: Three rounds of the Delphi method were performed; the response rates were 100%, 93%, and 91% respectively. As 30% of the clauses reached the predetermined standard for consensus, the council discussed and considered, established an authorized translation draft, and made a decision upon public comment from each academic organization. Conclusion: Academic organizations associated with palliative care jointly created an authorized translation for the “definition of palliative care” according to WHO.

Evaluation of Newspaper Stories on Drug Therapy with “Media Doctor” Instrument / 医薬品情報学

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine information quality by quantitatively evaluating newspaper stories on drug therapy using the “Media Doctor” instrument.Methods: A database search was conducted to extract newspaper stories on drug therapy published between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. Two evaluators independently evaluated each story using the “Media Doctor” instrument. Each of the 10 evaluation criteria were rated as “satisfactory” or “not satisfactory.” When the content of the story was not suitable for the evaluation criteria, it was regarded as “not applicable”.Results: Fifty-nine news stories (Asahi: 13, Mainichi: 8, Nikkei: 8, Sankei: 14, Yomiuri: 16) were included. The median number of evaluation criteria that the two evaluators judged as “satisfactory” was 5. The proportions of stories that the two evaluators judged as satisfactory were “1. availability,” 73%; “2. novelty,” 66%; “3. alternatives,” 39%; “4. disease mongering,” 58%; “5. evidence,” 32%; “6. quantification of benefits,” 31%; “7. harm,” 41%; “8. cost,” 22%; “9. sources of information/conflict of interest,” 12%; and “10. headline,” 66%. Conversely, the proportions of stories judged as “not satisfactory” were “1. availability,” 0%; “2. novelty,” 5%; “3. alternatives,” 12%; “4. disease mongering,” 8%; “5. evidence,” 24%; “6. quantification of benefits,” 29%; “7. harm,” 41%; “8. cost,”44%; “9. sources of information/conflict of interest,” 32%; and “10. headline,” 12%.Conclusion: These results suggest that the quality of newspaper stories are insufficient as drug information in terms of the validity of its scientific evidence.