4.6 Article

Social deprivation among socio-economic contrasted french areas: Using item response theory analysis to assess differential item functioning of the EPICES questionnaire in stroke patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230661

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health [PHRC 2010/07/05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Multiple approaches have been proposed to measure low socio-economic status. In France the concept of precariousness, akin to social deprivation, was developed and is widely used. EPICES is a short questionnaire that was developed to measure this concept. This study aimed to evaluate Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in the EPICES questionnaire between contrasted areas: mainland France, French West Indies (FWI) and French Guiana (FG). Methods The population was taken from the INDIA study, which aimed to evaluate the impact of social inequalities on stroke characteristics and prognosis. Eligible people were patients referred to neurology or emergency departments for a suspicion of stroke. We assessed the DIF using hybrid ordinal logistic regression method, derived from item response theory. Results We analysed 1 553 stroke patients, including 768 from FWI (49.5%), 289 from FG (18.6%) and 496 from mainland (31.9%). We identified five items with a moderate to large DIF in area comparisons: meeting with a social worker, complementary health insurance, home-owning, financial difficulties and sport activities. Correlation between EPICES score and the latent variable was strong (r = 0.84). Conclusion This is the first attempt to assess the DIF of the EPICES score between different French populations. We found several items with DIF, which can be explained by individual interpretation or local context. However, the DIFs did not lead to a large difference between the latent variable and the EPICES score, which indicates that it can be used to assess precariousness and social deprivation between contrasted areas.

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