(PS5-B34) Developing a New Intervention in Two Languages: Challenges and Lessons Learned

Background: In response to cross-cultural differences in access to mental health services in the United States, there has been a growing interest in increasing cultural responsiveness in psychotherapies. Translation of intervention materials is a key strategy to increase access among non-English-speaking populations. Most methodological guidance on translating interventions has pertained to established interventions. However, there is little guidance on how to develop an intervention intended to be used in multiple languages. Introducing the translation process at an early stage enables assessment of feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a new intervention across a broader, more inclusive population (rather than English speakers only). In addition, examining the cross-language relevance of a new intervention could identify important adaptations to improve cultural inclusivity in all language versions.

Objective: The goal of this poster is to discuss challenges and lessons learned in developing a culturally-inclusive intervention in both English and Spanish.

Method: We first created an English version of CARE, a dyadic early post-trauma intervention for sexual survivors and their supporters, by making deep structural adaptations (i.e., broader changes to increase cultural relevance) to an existing English-language intervention in order to increase its intersectional cultural responsiveness. We decided to simultaneously develop a Spanish language version based on input from community partner organizations. The translation process involved two phases: first, surface structural adaptation (i.e., linguistic translation) by a professional agency; second, editing for accuracy, meaning, and identification of the need for deep structural adaptations by two staff members who were native Spanish speakers. We then piloted the Spanish intervention with one dyad.

Results: We learned that it is possible, but time consuming and complicated, to simultaneously develop an intervention in two languages. We learned that translation agencies provide a foundation for linguistic adaptation but that their translations required extensive editing by study staff. We found that the deep structural adaptations made to CARE at the outset reduced the need for further deep structural adaptations post translation.

Conclusions: Future researchers should consider budgeting sufficient time when translating an intervention, hiring study staff who are native speakers of the target language, and collecting feedback from members of the cultural groups that an intervention hopes to serve. The outcome could potentially be a better culturally-adapted intervention.