International journal of colorectal disease · 2009
A simple quality of life questionnaire for patients with faecal incontinence.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Krysa Jo, Lyons Monica, Williams Andrew B
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: A simple quality of life questionnaire was designed to triage patients with faecal incontinence to the most appropriate level of support, investigation and treatment.
METHOD: A questionnaire was developed to include a 'symptom' score, similar in content to St Mark's questionnaire and a 'bothersome' score. A pilot study (34 patients) assessed the clarity of questions. Once content validity was established, it was sent to 360 patients who attended a pelvic floor clinic. Its external validity was assessed against the established standards of the short form 36 (SF-36) and the Manchester Health Questionnaires. Ease of use for these was assessed using a separate form.
RESULTS: Of the 360 patients, 86 replied. The questionnaire was shown to be reliable both by measurement of its internal consistency and by test-retest analysis. There was a significant correlation between the scores of the new questionnaire and the Manchester Health Questionnaire as well as the SF-36. Divergence validity, assessed by correlating the number of pads used and the overall symptom score, was established. The new questionnaire was easiest to complete, taking on average 4 min.
CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that the new questionnaire is reliable and valid. It is easy and quick to complete and assesses both severity and impact of symptoms.
METHOD: A questionnaire was developed to include a 'symptom' score, similar in content to St Mark's questionnaire and a 'bothersome' score. A pilot study (34 patients) assessed the clarity of questions. Once content validity was established, it was sent to 360 patients who attended a pelvic floor clinic. Its external validity was assessed against the established standards of the short form 36 (SF-36) and the Manchester Health Questionnaires. Ease of use for these was assessed using a separate form.
RESULTS: Of the 360 patients, 86 replied. The questionnaire was shown to be reliable both by measurement of its internal consistency and by test-retest analysis. There was a significant correlation between the scores of the new questionnaire and the Manchester Health Questionnaire as well as the SF-36. Divergence validity, assessed by correlating the number of pads used and the overall symptom score, was established. The new questionnaire was easiest to complete, taking on average 4 min.
CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that the new questionnaire is reliable and valid. It is easy and quick to complete and assesses both severity and impact of symptoms.