Suppr超能文献

三种哮喘特异性生活质量问卷的效度:患者视角

Validity of three asthma-specific quality of life questionnaires: the patients' perspective.

作者信息

Apfelbacher Christian J, Jones Christina J, Frew Anthony, Smith Helen

机构信息

Division of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.

Medical Sociology, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 22;6(12):e011793. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011793.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

It is not known which of the many asthma-specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaires best capture the lived experience of people with asthma. The objective of this study was to explore patients' views of three commonly used asthma-specific QoL questionnaires.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in Brighton and Hove, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

30 adult people with a physician-diagnosis of asthma who were asked to complete the Juniper Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-J), the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and the Living with Asthma Questionnaire (LWAQ) to elicit their views on the content validity of these.

RESULTS

Thematic content analysis revealed a lack of congruence between the concerns of people with asthma and the questionnaire content in terms of missing (eg, allergies) and irrelevant (eg, smoky restaurants) content. The AQLQ-J was perceived as a 'narrow', 'medical' questionnaire focused on symptoms, the environment and functional ability. In contrast, the LWAQ and the AQLQ-S were perceived to be 'non-medical'. The LWAQ was described as a 'test' and as a wide-ranging, embracing and holistic questionnaire. Its strong emotional focus was irritating to some. The AQLQ-S was described as a simple, quick and easy questionnaire, although there was a perception that it was lacking in depth.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient interviews highlighted strengths and shortcomings in the content validity of these three asthma-specific questionnaires. For patients, the AQLQ-S content seemed to be the most pertinent in its adequacy of coverage of medical, social and emotional aspects of health-related QoL in asthma.

摘要

目的

目前尚不清楚众多哮喘特异性生活质量(QoL)问卷中哪一种能最好地反映哮喘患者的实际生活体验。本研究的目的是探讨患者对三种常用的哮喘特异性QoL问卷的看法。

设计

采用半结构式访谈的定性研究。

地点

英国布莱顿和霍夫的初级和二级医疗保健机构。

参与者

30名经医生诊断为哮喘的成年人,他们被要求完成朱尼珀哮喘生活质量问卷(AQLQ-J)、悉尼哮喘生活质量问卷(AQLQ-S)和哮喘生活问卷(LWAQ),以了解他们对这些问卷内容效度的看法。

结果

主题内容分析显示,哮喘患者的关注点与问卷内容在缺失(如过敏)和不相关(如烟熏餐馆)内容方面缺乏一致性。AQLQ-J被认为是一份专注于症状、环境和功能能力的“狭义”“医学”问卷。相比之下,LWAQ和AQLQ-S被认为是“非医学”问卷。LWAQ被描述为一份“测试”问卷,内容广泛、包容且全面。其强烈的情感焦点让一些人感到恼火。AQLQ-S被描述为一份简单、快速且容易填写的问卷,尽管有人认为它缺乏深度。

结论

患者访谈突出了这三种哮喘特异性问卷在内容效度方面的优点和缺点。对患者来说,AQLQ-S的内容在涵盖哮喘相关健康相关生活质量的医学、社会和情感方面似乎最为恰当。

相似文献

6
Measuring asthma-specific quality of life: structured review.测量哮喘特异性生活质量:系统评价。
Allergy. 2011 Apr;66(4):439-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02500.x. Epub 2010 Nov 8.

引用本文的文献

7
The construction and validation of the Severe Asthma Questionnaire.《严重哮喘问卷》的编制与验证。
Eur Respir J. 2018 Jul 11;52(1). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00618-2018. Print 2018 Jul.

本文引用的文献

4
Measuring asthma-specific quality of life: structured review.测量哮喘特异性生活质量:系统评价。
Allergy. 2011 Apr;66(4):439-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02500.x. Epub 2010 Nov 8.
6
The Oxford hip score: the patient's perspective.牛津髋关节评分:患者视角
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005 Oct 31;3:66. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-66.
10
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.定性研究。引入焦点小组。
BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验