Evaluation of smoking-specific and generic quality of life measures in current and former smokers in Germany and the United States.
Evaluation of smoking-specific and generic quality of life measures in current and former smokers in Germany and the United States.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12955-015-0316-3
复制
发表时间：
2015-08-16
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Guyer R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ware JE Jr;Gandek B;Kulasekaran A;Guyer R
健康相关的生活质量（QOL）调查包括能够比较各种疾病的通用指标，以及更具体地关注一种疾病或病症的指标。我们评估了德语和英语版本的调查量表的心理测量特性，这两种类型的措施，在当前和以前的吸烟者的样本。TQOLIT™v1将吸烟特异性症状和归因于吸烟的QOL影响的新测量与通用SF-36健康调查测量相结合。为了评价的目的，对两个独立样本的横截面数据进行了分析。在德国的一项临床试验中，年龄在23-55岁之间的无疾病（其他方面健康）成年人使用片剂完成调查（125名当前吸烟者和54名既往吸烟者）。在美国，由其他健康的当前和既往吸烟者（分别为N = 149和110）完成了在线一般人群调查。评估包括心理测验的假设基础规模建设和评分，分数分布和可靠性。有效性测试包括基于概念框架和假设的横断面相关性和方差分析，这些假设针对两个样本中自我报告的吸烟行为（当前与既往吸烟者，每日吸烟量（CPD））和吸烟症状严重程度不同的人群，仅在德国试验中，暴露生物标志物的临床参数不同。测试的缩放假设和内部一致性可靠性（α = 0.71-0.79）的吸烟的具体措施是令人满意的，虽然天花板效应衰减的相关性，前吸烟者在两个样本。相关证据支持有效性的吸烟特定的症状和影响的措施，包括他们的实质性的相互关联和更高的相关性（比通用措施）与吸烟行为（有利于前当前组）和CPD在两个样本。在德国的试验中，两种吸烟特异性指标与所有四种生物标志物显著相关（p < 0.05）。在两个样本中，归因于吸烟的QOL影响与SF-36精神而非身体总结指标相关。德语和英语TQOLITv 1调查具有可比性和令人满意的心理测量特性。横断面测试，包括与四种生物标志物的相关性，支持新的吸烟特异性措施用于健康吸烟者研究的有效性。在所有的有效性测试中，吸烟的具体措施始终优于通用的生活质量措施。
Health-related quality of life (QOL) surveys include generic measures that enable comparisons across conditions and measures that focus more specifically on one disease or condition. We evaluated the psychometric properties of German- and English-language versions of survey scales representing both types of measures in samples of current and former smokers. TQOLIT™v1 integrates new measures of smoking-specific symptoms and QOL impact attributed to smoking with generic SF-36 Health Survey measures. For purposes of evaluation, cross-sectional data were analyzed for two independent samples. Disease-free (otherwise healthy) adults ages 23–55 used a tablet to complete surveys in a clinical trial in Germany (125 current and 54 former smokers). Online general population surveys were completed in the US by otherwise healthy current and former smokers (N = 149 and 110, respectively). Evaluations included psychometric tests of assumptions underlying scale construction and scoring, score distributions, and reliability. Tests of validity included cross-sectional correlations and analyses of variance based on a conceptual framework and hypotheses for groups differing in self-reported smoking behavior (current versus former smoker, cigarettes per day (CPD)) and severity of smoking symptoms in both samples and, in the German trial only, clinical parameters of biomarkers of exposure. Tests of scaling assumptions and internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.71–0.79) of the smoking-specific measures were satisfactory, although ceiling effects attenuated correlations for former smokers in both samples. Correlational evidence supporting validity of smoking-specific symptom and impact measures included their substantial inter-correlation and higher correlations (than generic measures) with smoking behavior (favoring former over current groups) and CPD in both samples. In the German trial, both smoking-specific measures correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with all four biomarkers. QOL impact attributed to smoking correlated with the SF-36 mental but not physical summary measures in both samples. German- and English-language TQOLITv1 surveys have comparable and satisfactory psychometric properties. Cross-sectional tests, including correlations with four biomarkers, support the validity of the new smoking-specific measures for use in studies of otherwise healthy smokers. Smoking-specific measures consistently performed better than generic QOL measures in all tests of validity.