4.6 Article

Content comparison of health-related quality of life instruments for obstructive sleep apnea

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 199-206

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2007.01.020

关键词

ICF; sleep; obstructive sleep apnea; health status; quality of life; disorders of excessive somnolence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Due to the increasing importance of quality of life assessments in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients and due to an increased use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), for comparative purposes it is essential to understand the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments and the ICF. The purpose of this study was to compare the content covered by OSA-specific instruments using the ICF. Patients and methods: OSA-specific instruments were identified, including the Calgary Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index, the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, the Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patient-Oriented Severity Index, and the Quebec Sleep Questionnaire, and linked to the ICF by six health professionals according to standardized guidelines. The degree of agreement between health professionals was calculated by means of the kappa statistic. Results: A total of 308 concepts were identified and linked to 78 different ICF categories; 35 categories of the component body function, one category of the component body structure, 38 categories of the component activities and participation, and four categories of the component environmental factors. Only contents within the chapters mental functions, mobility and social life were addressed by all instruments. Forty-seven categories were covered by only one instrument. Conclusion: The ICF proved highly useful for the comparison of HRQOL instruments. This analysis may help researchers and clinicians to choose the most appropriate HRQOL instrument for a specific purpose as well as help to compare study outcomes of studies using different instruments for HRQOL assessment. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据