4.4 Article

Portuguese adaptation of the S3-non-invasive ventilation (S3-NIV) questionnaire for home mechanically ventilated patients

期刊

PULMONOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 262-267

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.11.006

关键词

Questionnaire; Portuguese; Home mechanical ventilation; Quality of life; Side effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to develop a professional translation and cultural adaptation of the Portuguese S-3 non-invasive ventilation questionnaire. The Portuguese version of the S3-NIV questionnaire was found to be a simple and valid tool for routine clinical assessment of patients receiving home NIV.
Short, valid and easy to use tools are needed to monitor non-invasive ventilation in clinical practice and for organization of home mechanical ventilation services. The aim of this study was to develop a professional translation and cultural adaptation of the Portuguese S-3 non-invasive ventilation questionnaire. 234 stable patients (128 mate patients, 53.8%) with a mean age of 69.3 years under long-term home non-invasive ventilation were recruited from a single-center outpatient clinic. The most frequent diagnostic groups were obesity hypoventilation syndrome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and restrictive chest wall disorders. The Portuguese version of the questionnaire was obtained using translation back-translation process with two professional translators. Internal consistency for the total score was good (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.76) as well as for the respiratory symptoms and the sleep and side effects domains (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.68 and Cronbach's alpha coefficient =0.72, respectively). An exploratory factor analysis was performed leading to an explained variance of 54.6%, and resulted in 3 components. The Portuguese version of the S3-NIV questionnaire is a simple and valid tool for the routine clinical assessment of patients receiving home NIV. (C) 2020 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

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

4.4
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