Health Education Unit, Cardiovascular Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Prim Care Diabetes. 2011 Jul;5(2):103-7. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2011.02.001. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
There are several tools for the assessment of quality of life (QOL) in diabetes mellitus. In the current research, two standard questionnaires for evaluating of QOL were selected. First one was a questionnaire from the World Health Organization quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF 26) and the second one, The Iranian diabetics quality of life (IRDQOL). The first aim of this study was to reliability and validity of the Persian Version of WHOQOL-BREF 26. The second aims compare it with IRDQOL questionnaire in diabetic patients. A random sample of Iranian adult outpatient diabetics (n=387) was selected and they completed the WHOQOL and IRDQOL assessment instruments. In addition HbA1c was measured in these patients by calorimetric method. Data analysis was carried out by the use of T-test, Spearman correlation coefficient, Pearson's correlation coefficient. Data analysis based on Pearson correlations in the two questionnaires showed all subscales and total QOL have highly acceptable test-retest reliability. Comparison of total QOL and similar domains in the two questionnaires showed physical domain score in IRDQOL was lower than in WHOQOL and it was significant (P<.0001). Total QOL is more highly correlated with social domain and environmental domain in IRDQOL and WHOQOL, respectively. In IRDQOL, spiritual domain is not correlated with physical domain. Calculated parameters of reliability in the questionnaires indicated that stability present promising results in total QOL. In this study, WHOQOL domains have a logical relationship between glycemic control and QOL, but this logical relationship cannot be found in IRDQOL questionnaire. In IRDQOL spiritual domain is a very unreliable domain. We recommend more questions to be added spiritual domain in IRDQOL questionnaire and also distribution of items to be some how equal in four domains. By these, it may help to find some rational relations between afore-mentioned domains and glycemic control.
有几种工具可用于评估糖尿病患者的生活质量（QOL）。在当前的研究中，选择了两种用于评估 QOL 的标准问卷。一种是来自世界卫生组织的生活质量问卷（WHOQOL-BREF 26），另一种是伊朗糖尿病患者生活质量问卷（IRDQOL）。本研究的首要目的是评估 WHOQOL-BREF 26 波斯文版本的信度和效度。第二个目的是将其与糖尿病患者的 IRDQOL 问卷进行比较。随机抽取了 387 名伊朗成年门诊糖尿病患者作为样本，他们完成了 WHOQOL 和 IRDQOL 评估工具。此外，还通过比色法测量了这些患者的 HbA1c。数据分析采用 t 检验、斯皮尔曼相关系数、皮尔逊相关系数。基于两种问卷的 Pearson 相关性分析显示，所有子量表和总 QOL 的重测信度均非常高。比较两种问卷的总 QOL 和相似领域发现，IRDQOL 的生理领域评分低于 WHOQOL，且差异具有统计学意义（P<.0001）。IRDQOL 中，总 QOL 与社会领域和环境领域的相关性更高，而 WHOQOL 中，总 QOL 与社会领域和环境领域的相关性更高。在 IRDQOL 中，精神领域与生理领域不相关。两种问卷的可靠性计算参数表明，总 QOL 的稳定性具有良好的结果。在这项研究中，WHOQOL 领域与血糖控制和 QOL 之间存在逻辑关系，但在 IRDQOL 问卷中找不到这种逻辑关系。在 IRDQOL 中，精神领域是一个非常不可靠的领域。我们建议在 IRDQOL 问卷中增加更多与精神领域相关的问题，并且四个领域的项目分布应该更加均衡。通过这些改进，可能有助于发现上述领域与血糖控制之间的一些合理关系。
