4.3 Review

Psychometric Characteristics of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaires in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia

期刊

DYSPHAGIA
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 183-198

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-013-9511-8

关键词

Oropharyngeal dysphagia; Health-related quality of life; Questionnaires; Psychometric characteristics; Deglutition; Deglutition disorders

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dysphagia can have severe consequences for the patient's health, influencing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Sound psychometric properties of HRQoL questionnaires are a precondition for assessing the impact of dysphagia, the focus of this study, resulting in recommendations for the appropriate use of these questionnaires in both clinical practice and research contexts. We performed a systematic review starting with a search for and retrieval of all full-text articles on the development of HRQoL questionnaires related to oropharyngeal dysphagia and/or their psychometric validation from the electronic databases PubMed and Embase published up to June 2011. Psychometric properties were judged according to quality criteria proposed for health status questionnaires. Eight questionnaires were included in this study. Four are aimed solely at HRQoL in oropharyngeal dysphagia: the deglutition handicap index (DHI), dysphagia handicap index (DHI'), M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), and SWAL-QOL, while the EDGQ, EORTC QLQ-STO 22, EORTC QLQ-OG 25 and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 focus on other primary diseases resulting in dysphagia. The psychometric properties of the DHI, DHI', MDADI, and SWAL-QOL were evaluated. For appropriate applicability of HRQoL questionnaires, strong scores on the psychometric criteria face validity, criterion validity, and interpretability are prerequisites. The SWAL-QOL has the strongest ratings for these criteria, while the DHI' is the most easy to apply given its 25 items and the use of a uniform scoring format. For optimal use of HRQoL questionnaires in diverse settings, it is necessary to combine psychometric and utility approaches.

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

4.3
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