4.5 Article

The Ectodermal Dysplasias-Burden of Disease Score: Development and Validation of an Ectodermal Dysplasia Family/Parental Burden Score

期刊

ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5203

关键词

ectodermal dysplasias; burden; questionnaire; quality of life; parents; genodermatoses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed and validated a questionnaire for assessing the familial/parental burden of ectodermal dysplasias. The questionnaire demonstrated high internal consistency and strong correlation with other validated questionnaires.
Ectodermal dysplasias are genetic conditions affecting the development and/or homeostasis of 2 or more ectodermal derivatives, including hair, teeth, nails, and certain glands. No tool is available to assess the burden of ectodermal dysplasias and its multidimensional impact on patients and their families. This study developed and validated a familial/parental 19-item burden questionnaire designed specifically for ectodermal dysplasias. Each group of questions was linked to 1 of the following dimensions: (i) Impact of the disease on social life and hobbies; (ii) Future prospects; (iii) Restraint of the disease on outdoor activities; (iv) Financial burden of the disease; (v) Acceptance of the disease. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91 for the entire Ectodermal Dysplasias-Burden of Disease (ED-BD) scale, confirming excellent internal coherence. Intradimensional coherences all demonstrated excellent reliability (a > 0.76). The ED-BD questionnaire was highly correlated with the Short Form-12 and Psychological General Well Being Index validated questionnaires. Cultural and linguistic validation in US English was conducted. Development and validation of the questionnaire was based on data from patients with the 2 main ectodermal dysplasias subtypes. This ED-BD questionnaire represents the first specific assessment tool for evaluating the familial/parental burden of ectodermal dysplasias.

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

4.5
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