4.5 Article

Cross-cultural development and validation of a patient self-administered questionnaire to assess quality of life in upper gastrointestinal disorders:: The PAGI-QOL©

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 1751-1762

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-8751-3

关键词

dyspepsia; gastroparesis; GastroEsophageal Reflux Disease (GERD); Patient Assessment of Upper GastroIntestinal Disorders-Quality of Life (PAGI-QOL); Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO); Quality of Life (QoL)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Summarize the Patient Assessment of Upper GastroIntestinal Disorders-Quality of Life (PAGI-QOL(C)) development and provide results on its reliability and validity from the international psychometric validation in dyspepsia, GastroEsophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), and gastroparesis. Methods: Subjects completed the pilot PAGI-QOL at baseline and 8 weeks; and a subsample also at 2 weeks. Other assessments were: Patient Assessment of Upper GastroIntestinal Disorders- Symptom Severity Index, SF-36, number of disability days. Results: 1736 patients completed the PAGI-QOL at baseline. The questionnaire was reduced, producing a 30-item final version covering five domains: Daily Activities, Clothing, Diet and Food Habits, Relationship (REL), and Psychological Well-Being and Distress. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha range: 0.83 - 0.96). Test - retest reproducibility was good: intraclass correlations coefficients were over 0.70 except for the REL scale (0.61). Concurrent validity between the PAGI-QOL total score and all SF-36 subscale scores was good with moderate (0.52) to strong (0.72) correlations. PAGI-QOL scores showed excellent discriminant properties: patients who had spent some days in bed, had missed some days at work, and were kept from usual activities had much lower PAGI-QOL scores than those who did not ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The PAGI-QOL is a valid and reliable instrument assessing quality of life in patients with dyspepsia, GERD, or gastroparesis.

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