Schoormans Dounya, Mager Yuma L, Oort Frans J, Sprangers Mirjam A G, Mulder Barbara J M
Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 5, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cardiol Young. 2012 Feb;22(1):26-33. doi: 10.1017/S1047951111000825. Epub 2011 Jul 4.
The objective of this study was to compare three patient-based New York Heart Association assessments with cardiologist assessments in outpatients with congenital cardiac disease.
Consecutive adult outpatients completed three questionnaires in a random order: a patient-based translation of the New York Heart Association classes, a self-constructed questionnaire based on the New York Heart Association classes, and the Specific Activity Scale. The treating cardiologist assessed the New York Heart Association class on the same day. Patient-cardiologist agreement was assessed by calculating percent agreement and weighted kappa. We also explored the level of agreement for patients without co-morbidity.
In all, 86 adults--with a median age of 35.8 years--including 46 women participated. An agreement of 75.6% (weighted kappa is 0.43; probability is smaller than 0.01), 70.6% (weighted kappa is 0.44; probability is smaller than 0.01), and 74.4% (weighted kappa is 0.28; probability is smaller than 0.01) was found between the cardiologist assessment and the patient-based translation, self-constructed questionnaire, and the Specific Activity Scale, respectively. The patient-based translation equally over- and underestimated the New York Heart Association class, whereas the self-constructed questionnaire overestimated and the Specific Activity Scale underestimated the New York Heart Association class. Agreement levels for patients without co-morbidity were higher than agreement levels for the total group.
The patient-based translation yielded adequate agreement with cardiologist-assessed New York Heart Association class, showed equal over- and underestimation, and was easy to complete. The patient-based translation with the instruction to only consider functional impairments caused by the congenital cardiac defect is recommended in future studies of outpatients with congenital cardiac disease.
本研究的目的是比较三种基于患者的纽约心脏协会评估与心脏病专家对先天性心脏病门诊患者的评估。
连续的成年门诊患者以随机顺序完成三份问卷:纽约心脏协会分级的基于患者的翻译版本、基于纽约心脏协会分级自行编制的问卷以及特定活动量表。主治心脏病专家在同一天评估纽约心脏协会分级。通过计算百分比一致性和加权kappa来评估患者与心脏病专家的一致性。我们还探讨了无合并症患者的一致性水平。
共有86名成年人(中位年龄35.8岁)参与,其中包括46名女性。心脏病专家评估与基于患者的翻译版本、自行编制的问卷以及特定活动量表之间的一致性分别为75.6%(加权kappa为0.43;概率小于0.01)、70.6%(加权kappa为0.44;概率小于0.01)和74.4%(加权kappa为0.28;概率小于0.01)。基于患者的翻译版本对纽约心脏协会分级的高估和低估程度相当,而自行编制的问卷高估了纽约心脏协会分级,特定活动量表低估了纽约心脏协会分级。无合并症患者的一致性水平高于总体组的一致性水平。
基于患者的翻译版本与心脏病专家评估的纽约心脏协会分级具有足够的一致性,高估和低估程度相当,且易于完成。在未来对先天性心脏病门诊患者的研究中,建议采用仅考虑先天性心脏缺陷引起的功能障碍的基于患者的翻译版本。