MedElevator
Войти в исследования Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2016
Adaptation and validation of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for the Netherlands.
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.
Wapenaar M, Twiss J, Wagenaar M, Seijkens P, van den Toorn L, Stepanous J, Heaney A, van den Bosch A, Boomars K A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) is the first disease-specific instrument for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) to assess patient-perceived symptoms, activity limitations and quality of life. To be able to use this questionnaire in the Netherlands, the aim of the study was to translate and validate this instrument for the Dutch-speaking population.
METHODS: First the CAMPHOR was translated into Dutch (by means of a bilingual and a lay panel) and field-tested by means of cognitive debriefing interviews with ten PAH patients. For psychometric evaluation, 80 patients with PAH or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) were asked to complete the CAMPHOR twice over a two-week period. To test for construct validity, participants also completed the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP).
RESULTS: The Dutch version of the CAMPHOR showed high internal consistency for all scales (Cronbach's alpha 0.89-0.91) and excellent reproducibility over two weeks (reliability coefficients 0.87-0.91). Concurrent validity showed that the CAMPHOR scales correlated as expected with the NHP scales. The CAMPHOR was able to distinguish between patient groups based on self-reported general health status, disease severity and NYHA classification demonstrating evidence of known group validity. The CAMPHOR activity limitations scale correlated moderately with the distance walked during the 6‑minute walk test (r = -0.47, p < 0.01) and the symptoms scale with the Borg dyspnoea score (r = 0.51, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The Dutch version of the CAMPHOR is a reliable and valid measure of quality of life and health status in patients with PAH and CTEPH is recommended for use in routine care and in clinical research.
METHODS: First the CAMPHOR was translated into Dutch (by means of a bilingual and a lay panel) and field-tested by means of cognitive debriefing interviews with ten PAH patients. For psychometric evaluation, 80 patients with PAH or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) were asked to complete the CAMPHOR twice over a two-week period. To test for construct validity, participants also completed the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP).
RESULTS: The Dutch version of the CAMPHOR showed high internal consistency for all scales (Cronbach's alpha 0.89-0.91) and excellent reproducibility over two weeks (reliability coefficients 0.87-0.91). Concurrent validity showed that the CAMPHOR scales correlated as expected with the NHP scales. The CAMPHOR was able to distinguish between patient groups based on self-reported general health status, disease severity and NYHA classification demonstrating evidence of known group validity. The CAMPHOR activity limitations scale correlated moderately with the distance walked during the 6‑minute walk test (r = -0.47, p < 0.01) and the symptoms scale with the Borg dyspnoea score (r = 0.51, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The Dutch version of the CAMPHOR is a reliable and valid measure of quality of life and health status in patients with PAH and CTEPH is recommended for use in routine care and in clinical research.