4.6 Article

A new tool to evaluate the impact of chronic urticaria on quality of life:: chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire (CU-Q2oL)

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 60, 期 8, 页码 1073-1078

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00833.x

关键词

disease specific questionnaire; quality of life; urticaria; validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Health-related quality of Life in patients with chronic urticaria is evaluated by mean of generic instruments or questionnaire designed for skin diseases. No disease-specific tool is now available for the assessment of chronic urticaria impact from patients' viewpoint. Objective: The aim of our study is to develop and validate a new questionnaire specifically designed for the assessment of quality of life in chronic urticaria (Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire - CU-Q(2)oL) Methods: In the development phase of CU-Q(2)oL an initial list of items of 37 items was compiled and given to 80 patients with chronic urticaria; the 23 most significant items were selected and converted into questions evaluating the answers on a Likert scale of five steps. The validation procedure involved 125 patients (86 F and 39 M) (age 42.17 +/- 9.24 years). Results: Following a statistical analysis, CU-Q(2)oL showed a six-dimensional structure and good levels of internal consistency for the extracted factors: Pruritus (0.79), Swelling (0.65), Impact on life activities (0.83), Sleep problems (0.77), Looks (0.83) and Limits (0.74). In stable conditions CU-Q(2)oL showed a good reliability, ranged between 0.64 and 0.92. Responsiveness to clinical changes was accomplished. Discussion: These results provide evidence that CU-Q(2)oL has specificity enough for being a valid tool for detecting the relative burden of CU on subjective wellbeing, and for obtaining a global evaluation both of CU impact and of treatments, taking into account the patient's point of view. The CU-Q(2)oL was easily and quickly filled up and well accepted by the patients.

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

4.6
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