4.3 Article

Development of the French-Canadian Version of the Self-Administered Comorbidities Questionnaire (SCQ) in a hospital population undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.12.022

关键词

Comorbidity; Translation; Psychometric properties; Transcultural validity; Arthroplasty

资金

  1. Consortium national de formation en sante (CNFS), Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) is a tool used by hospitalized patients to self-report their comorbidities. It can help to explain the effectiveness of hip or knee arthroplasty, its complications, the length of hospital stay and perioperative resource utilization. Hypothesis: The French-Canadian version of the SCQ will be suitable for use in a Canadian hospital population. Objectives: (1) translate and evaluate the transcultural validity of the SCQ in a French Canadian population undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty; (2) determine the standard error of measurement (SEM) in the French Canadian version. Materials and Methods: The translation and transcultural adaptation process consisted of four steps: (1) initial translation; (2) back translation; (3) assessment of questionnaire clarity with patients; (4) assessment of the translation's transcultural validity. The SEM was also calculated. Results: Twenty participants were recruited for step 3 and 83 participants for step 4. The original English version of the SCQ and the translated French-Canadian version (SCQ-FC) were similar with intra-class correlation coefficients for the intra-language and inter-language agreement between 0.71 and 0.97. The SEM was 1.92. Conclusion: The SCQ-FC is comparable to the original English language version. Using this questionnaire allows us to document the comorbidities present in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty in a French-Canadian population, and the impact of these comorbidities on the patients' health. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.3
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