4.3 Article

Exploring regional variations in the cross-cultural, international implementation of the Patient Reported Outcomes Burdens and Experience (PROBE) study

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 365-372

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hae.13703

关键词

haemophilia; patient-reported outcome; quality of life; variance

资金

  1. Baxalta, Shire
  2. Bayer
  3. Bioverativ, a Sanofi company
  4. CSL Behring
  5. Novo Nordisk
  6. Roche
  7. Sobi
  8. US National Hemophilia Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The Patient Reported Outcomes Burdens and Experience (PROBE) study has developed and validated the PROBE questionnaire for assessing patient-reported outcomes in people with haemophilia and participants without bleeding disorders. Objective To explore the regional variations in the international implementation of the PROBE questionnaire. Methods Data were collected from participants in four regions (Western Pacific, South America, North America and Europe). Participants were able to choose English or translated versions of the PROBE questionnaire into their first language. We used analysis of variance methods and multivariable regression to determine the relative contribution of the variance explained by region controlling for haemophilia diagnosis, age group and levels of educations. We also explored interactions between region and the other components. Results We used 862 questionnaires from 14 countries. Mean age of participants was 40.03 years (standard deviation 13.89), and 73.67% were male. After adjusting, region contributed 0.44%-7.98% of the variance component in subitem scores and 0.26% in the PROBE score. Years of education contributed 0.34% in the PROBE score. Age and haemophilia diagnosis contributed 3.42% and 22.42% of the PROBE score. Conclusions The results demonstrate that the PROBE questionnaire is valid to implement for assessing health status among patients with haemophilia and participants without bleeding disorders across regions.

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

4.3
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