Suppr超能文献

肠易激综合征生活质量测量量表、肠易激综合征工作效率与活动受限问卷以及欧洲五维度健康量表电子数据采集的验证

Validation of electronic data capture of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome--Quality of Life Measure, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and the EuroQol.

作者信息

Bushnell Donald M, Reilly Margaret C, Galani Carmen, Martin Mona L, Ricci Jean-François, Patrick Donald L, McBurney Christopher R

机构信息

Health Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA 98043, USA.

出版信息

Value Health. 2006 Mar-Apr;9(2):98-105. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00087.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparability, reliability, and subject acceptability of electronic data capture (EDC) versions of Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL), EuroQoL (EQ-5D) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI:IBS) instruments.

METHODS

Comparability of EDC and paper questionnaires was evaluated in 72 subjects with IBS who completed a baseline EDC or paper questionnaire, a crossover questionnaire 24 hours later, and a retest of the crossover version at 1 week. The EDC version was presented on a hand-held device. Comparability was assessed using paired t-test statistics, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and tests for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha).

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between scores obtained by paper questionnaire and EDC at the baseline and crossover assessments. ICCs between baseline and crossover assessments ranged from 0.83 to 0.96 for the IBS-QOL scores, 0.82 to 0.96 for the WPAI:IBS scores, and 0.77 to 0.82 for the EQ-5D. Internal consistency was comparable for the two data collection methods for the IBS-QOL overall score (0.96) and subscales and the EQ-5D Index (0.70 vs. 0.74). Retest statistics (ICC) were generally comparable between the EDC and paper versions for all scores. Ease of use was comparable for the two modes of administration, but more patients preferred EDC (47.2%) than the paper questionnaire (23.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

EDC versions of the IBS-QOL, EQ-5D, and WPAI:IBS are comparable to paper questionnaires in internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and have greater patient acceptability.

摘要

目的

评估肠易激综合征生活质量(IBS-QOL)、欧洲五维度健康量表(EQ-5D)以及工作效率与活动能力受限量表(WPAI:IBS)的电子数据采集(EDC)版本的可比性、可靠性及受试者可接受性。

方法

对72例肠易激综合征患者进行评估,这些患者完成了一份基线EDC问卷或纸质问卷,24小时后完成一份交叉问卷,并在1周后对交叉版本进行重测。EDC版本通过手持设备呈现。使用配对t检验统计量、组内相关系数(ICC)和内部一致性检验(Cronbach's alpha)来评估可比性。

结果

在基线和交叉评估中,纸质问卷和EDC获得的分数之间未发现显著差异。IBS-QOL分数在基线和交叉评估之间的ICC范围为0.83至0.96,WPAI:IBS分数为0.82至0.96,EQ-5D为0.77至0.82。IBS-QOL总分(0.96)及其子量表与EQ-五维度健康量表指数(0.70对0.74)的两种数据收集方法的内部一致性相当。所有分数的重测统计量(ICC)在EDC版本和纸质版本之间通常具有可比性。两种给药方式的易用性相当,但更多患者更喜欢EDC(47.2%)而非纸质问卷(23.6%)。

结论

IBS-QOL、EQ-5D和WPAI:IBS的EDC版本在内部一致性和重测可靠性方面与纸质问卷相当,且具有更高的患者可接受性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验