4.7 Article

Development and preliminary validation of a systemic lupus erythematosus-specific quality-of-life instrument (SLEQOL)

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 44, 期 10, 页码 1267-1276

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh605

关键词

quality of life; systemic lupus erythematosus; helplessness; activity index; Rasch model analysis; factor analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a chronic illness with an unpredictable and variable course, profoundly affects the quality of life (QOL). General health questionnaires are used to assess QOL in SLE, but a disease-specific instrument could offer enhanced responsiveness and content validity. We detail the steps we took to develop and validate a new SLE-specific QOL instrument, SLEQOL. Methods. Rheumatology professionals nominated items that they felt were important determinants of QOL of SLE patients. One hundred SLE patients were asked to assess the importance and frequency of occurrence of these items and to suggest those that had not been listed. Item reduction was performed using Rasch model and factor analyses to create a new questionnaire in English. This final questionnaire was administered to a cohort of 275 patients to study its psychometric properties. Results. Fifty-one items covering a wide range of QOL concerns were identified. The patients' responses led to the elimination of 11. The new questionnaire of 40 items was found to have Cronbach's alpha of 0.95 and to consist of eight domains covering physical, mental and social QOL issues. It has good test-retest reliability, poor to fair cross-sectional correlation with the SF-36, with poor correlation with lupus activity or damage indices. The SLEQOL was more responsive to change than the SF-36. Conclusions. We have developed a new 40-item SLEQOL in English and showed that it is valid for use in SLE patients in Singapore. It offers better content validity and responsiveness to change than the SF-36.

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

4.7
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