Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
Comparison of generic and condition-specific oral health-related quality of life instruments in patients with oral submucous fibrosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gondivkar Shailesh M, Bhowate Rahul R, Gadbail Amol R, Gondivkar Rima S, Sarode Sachin C, Saode Gargi S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: With the growing interest in health economics, there is a demand for best valid instrument to assess quality of life (QoL) in patients with oral submucous fibrosis (OSF). The objective of this study was to compare the convergent and discriminative properties of the condition-specific OHRQoL-OSF and generic OHIP-14 in OSF patients.
METHODS: The OHRQoL-OSF and OHIP-14 instruments were administered concurrently to 300 clinically diagnosed OSF patients. Analysis of both the instruments was carried out by using descriptive statistics. The internal consistency and reproducibility of the instruments were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intra-class correlation coefficient respectively. The convergent and discriminative validity were then determined and compared.
RESULTS: The OHRQoL-OSF and OHIP-14 exhibited good psychometric properties for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.88) and reproducibility (ICC > 0.85). A positive associations were observed between both the instruments, but a high prevalence of patients with no impact was noted using the OHIP-14. Both the instruments were able to discriminate between patients with different clinical stages of OSF, but OHRQoL-OSF was more responsive in the early stages of OSF. The OHRQoL-OSF demonstrated greater sensitivity for 'discomfort and functional impairment'.
CONCLUSIONS: The condition-specific OHRQoL-OSF identified OSF patients with impaired oral health-related QoL more easily with greater discriminative properties. To better understand patient reported experiences in OSF, these results may guide the choice of instrument in future researches and surveys.
METHODS: The OHRQoL-OSF and OHIP-14 instruments were administered concurrently to 300 clinically diagnosed OSF patients. Analysis of both the instruments was carried out by using descriptive statistics. The internal consistency and reproducibility of the instruments were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intra-class correlation coefficient respectively. The convergent and discriminative validity were then determined and compared.
RESULTS: The OHRQoL-OSF and OHIP-14 exhibited good psychometric properties for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.88) and reproducibility (ICC > 0.85). A positive associations were observed between both the instruments, but a high prevalence of patients with no impact was noted using the OHIP-14. Both the instruments were able to discriminate between patients with different clinical stages of OSF, but OHRQoL-OSF was more responsive in the early stages of OSF. The OHRQoL-OSF demonstrated greater sensitivity for 'discomfort and functional impairment'.
CONCLUSIONS: The condition-specific OHRQoL-OSF identified OSF patients with impaired oral health-related QoL more easily with greater discriminative properties. To better understand patient reported experiences in OSF, these results may guide the choice of instrument in future researches and surveys.