4.5 Article

Relative responsiveness of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire and four other health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic lung disease

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 2, 页码 308-316

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.04.023

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; quality of life; Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire; St Georges

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Selection of heath-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments that are most responsive to changes in HRQL prevents investigators from drawing false-negative conclusions about the effectiveness of an intervention. The objective of this study was to compare the responsiveness of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and four other HRQL instruments. Methods: We enrolled 177 patients with chronic lung disease, primarily COPD (93%), who completed 8 weeks of respiratory rehabilitation. Patients completed the CRQ, the SGRQ and four generic measures (SF-36, Feeling Thermometer, Standard Gamble and Health Utilities index 3) at the beginning of the rehabilitation program and 12 weeks thereafter. We calculated standardized response means (SRMs) for each instrument, from the change score divided by the standard deviation of the change score. Results: We observed the largest SRM for the CRQ (0.24-0.66 for the four CRQ domains on the interviewer-administered and 0.56-0.84 for the self-administered format) and the SGRQ (0.33-0.51 for the three SGRQ domains and total score). The CRQ dyspnea domain was statistically significantly more responsive than any other instrument including the SGRQ. For the SGRQ, the total and impacts domain were significantly more responsive than the generic and preference-based instruments. Conclusions: This study confirms that the CRQ and SGRQ are substantially more responsive than generic measures, and suggests particularly strong responsiveness for the self-administered CRQ. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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