Rhein Friederike Felicitas, Klee Rebecca, Albrecht Balazs, Krämer Stephanie
Professorship of Laboratory Animal Science and Animal Welfare & Interdisciplinary Centre for Animal Welfare Research and 3R (ICAR3R), Justus Liebig University Giessen, Frankfurter Str. 95, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH, Binger Straße 173, 55216 Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Animals (Basel). 2025 Jun 17;15(12):1780. doi: 10.3390/ani15121780.
Quality of life (QoL) assessment has increased in veterinary medicine in recent years, as has the number of attempts to measure it. This review aimed to provide an overview and assess the quality of existing instruments measuring disease-specific QoL in dogs. The PubMed and CAB Abstracts databases were searched in February 2023 using search terms associated with dogs, well-being, and QoL to identify relevant articles which were then evaluated for information on the development and validation processes. For further analysis, 41 publications were selected, of which instruments were available for 30 publications; of these, 24 contained information on item development, while 12 of the 41 instruments described some form of instrument evaluation. Among these 12 instruments, 2 exhibited appropriate test-retest reliability, 7 exhibited acceptable internal consistency, 9 checked at least one face or content validity, and 8 tested at least one sort of hypothesis to contribute to construct validity evaluation. None of the instruments were thoroughly evaluated for all necessary psychometric aspects for their application and result interpretation. Therefore, these instruments' usage should be carefully considered and subject to restrictions. Further research should focus on establishing guidelines aiming to achieve high standards for instrument development and validation in veterinary medicine.
近年来,兽医领域的生活质量(QoL)评估有所增加,测量生活质量的尝试次数也有所增加。本综述旨在概述并评估现有的测量犬类特定疾病生活质量的工具的质量。2023年2月,在PubMed和CAB文摘数据库中进行了检索,使用了与犬、幸福感和生活质量相关的检索词,以识别相关文章,然后对这些文章进行评估,以获取有关工具开发和验证过程的信息。为了进行进一步分析,选择了41篇出版物,其中30篇出版物有可用的工具;在这些工具中,24篇包含有关条目开发的信息,41种工具中的12种描述了某种形式的工具评估。在这12种工具中,2种表现出适当的重测信度,7种表现出可接受的内部一致性,9种检查了至少一种表面或内容效度,8种测试了至少一种假设以有助于结构效度评估。没有一种工具针对其应用和结果解释的所有必要心理测量方面进行了全面评估。因此,应谨慎考虑这些工具的使用并加以限制。进一步的研究应侧重于制定旨在在兽医医学中实现工具开发和验证高标准的指南。