The final validated UK English version of the survey was translated certainly into Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, following methods already described. To take advantage of the commonalities between the Scandinavian languages, the survey was first translated into Danish. The translation into Danish followed a standardised process. Translations were done by two native Danish speakers who spoke good English. The translation was then checked by two Danish PCPs and any problems discussed with the translators at an expert meeting. Then there was a back translation into English made by two English native speakers who also spoke Danish fluently. Both were familiar with medical terminology. The back translation was compared and discussed and semantic differences with the original version were discussed at a second expert meeting.

We aimed for conceptual and cultural equivalence rather than a verbatim translation. Items were culturally adapted to reflect the Danish healthcare systems. Discussion between the central team and Danish collaborators was then undertaken to check equivalence of linguistic, cultural and Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries professional meaning with the UK English version. The final Danish version was then pilot tested among four PCPs before being translated into Swedish and Norwegian. These translations were made by a single translation into Swedish and Norwegian, respectively. These versions were not back translated. The final Norwegian and Swedish versions were culturally and structurally adapted. The Swedish version was also tested on 20 PCPs and registrars.

Pilot testing of the final version The survey was converted into an electronic version by a commercial company. The electronic version was then tested by 16 PCPs in the UK. No issues were identified concerning how Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries the electronic version of the survey worked. However, the time taken to complete all five vignettes was considered to be too long and the central team decided to ask each respondent Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries to answer Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries only two vignettes each. These vignettes were assigned randomly, with each referring to a different cancer, with either a positive cancer diagnosis followed by a negative vignette or vice versa. Respondents knew this was a cancer related survey, so the choice and outcome of vignettes was randomized to minimise bias. Sample selection Each jurisdiction decided on a method of sampling and approach to potential participants, dependant on local conditions and the availability of databases with PCP contact details.

Participants Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries were PCPs in regular day time primary care, locums or those working in out of hours services. Bosutinib 380843-75-4 Retired PCPs and those in training were not eligible, and other primary care providers such as nurse practitioners were not included. Analysis plan The answers to direct questions will be presented as simple descriptive statistics.