4.6 Article

Validation of a parent-proxy quality of life questionnaire for paediatric chronic cough (PC-QOL)

期刊

THORAX
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 819-823

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2009.133868

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Children's Hospital Foundation (Brisbane, Australia)
  2. NHMRC [545216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Quality of life (QOL) measures are an important patient-relevant outcome measure for clinical studies. Currently there is no fully validated cough-specific QOL measure for paediatrics. The objective of this study was to validate a cough-specific QOL questionnaire for paediatric use. Method 43 children (28 males, 15 females; median age 29 months, IQR 20-41 months) newly referred for chronic cough participated. One parent of each child completed the 27-item Parent Cough-Specific QOL questionnaire (PC-QOL), and the generic child (Pediatric QOL Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL)) and parent QOL questionnaires (SF-12) and two cough-related measures (visual analogue score and verbal category descriptive score) on two occasions separated by 2-3 weeks. Cough counts were also objectively measured on both occasions. Results Internal consistency for both the domains and total PC-QOL at both test times was excellent (Cronbach alpha range 0.70-0.97). Evidence for repeatability and criterion validity was established, with significant correlations over time and significant relationships with the cough measures. The PC-QOL was sensitive to change across the test times and these changes were significantly related to changes in cough measures (PC-QOL with: verbal category descriptive score, r(s) = -0.37, p=0.016; visual analogue score, r(s) = -0.47, p=0.003). Significant correlations of the difference scores for the social domain of the PC-QOL and the domain and total scores of the PedsQL were also noted (r(s)=0.46, p=0.034). Conclusion The PC-QOL is a reliable and valid outcome measure that assesses QOL related to childhood cough at a given time point and measures changes in cough-specific QOL over time.

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