4.1 Article

Validation of the Croatian version of CIVIQ quality of life questionnaire in patients with chronic venous disorders

期刊

CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 292-299

出版社

MEDICINSKA NAKLADA
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2017.58.292

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To test the psychometric properties of the Croatian version of the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life (CIVIQ) Questionnaire and to assess the quality of life in patients with chronic venous disorders of all stages. Methods This cross-sectional study performed between 2014 and 2015 in a private family practice assessed the factorial validity, cross-sectional validity, and reliability of the Croatian CIVIQ 20-item questionnaire completed by 428 adult patients (78% women) with chronic venous disorders classified according to the Clinical-Etiologic-AnatomicPathophysiologic (CEAP) C classification as stages C1-C6. Results Median patient age was 52 years (5th-95th percentile, 30-77). The distribution according to the clinical stages of chronic venous disorders was as follows: C1 (n = 78, 18%), C2 (n = 192, 45%), C3 (n = 53, 12%), C4 (n = 44, 10%), C5 (n = 13, 3%), and C6 (n = 48, 11%). The CIVIQ-20 factorial structure was unstable, and six items were excluded from the analysis to test the psychometric properties of the shortened version (CIVIQ-14). CIVIQ-14 has three dimensions (physical, psychological, and pain). Internal consistency reliability is high for the entire CIVIQ-14 (Cronbach a = 0.92) and for all CIVIQ-14 dimensions (a>0.80). The median quality of life significantly decreased with higher CEAP C stages as follows: C1/C2 (86, 50-100); C3/ C4 (75, 36-98); C5/C6 (67, 31-95) (P < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis showed a higher quality of life in C1/C2 than in other groups (P < 0.001). Conclusion The shortened CIVIQ-14 version is useful for assessing the quality of life in patients with chronic venous disorders in everyday clinical practice. To achieve a stable validated instrument, we recommend a cross-cultural validation of items that have loadings on more than one factor.

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

4.1
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