Surgery today · 2013
Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Morooka Yuki, Umeshita Koji, Taketomi Akinobu, Shirabe Ken, Maehara Yoshihiko, Yamamoto Mayumi, Shimamura Tsuyoshi, Oshita Akihiko, Kanno Keiko, Ohdan Hideki, Kawagishi Naoki, Satomi Susumu, Ogawa Kaoru, Hagiwara Kuniko, Nagano Hiroaki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity.
METHODS: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital.
RESULTS: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.
METHODS: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital.
RESULTS: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.