WOUND-Q 的进一步心理计量评估:响应性研究

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY Wound Repair and Regeneration Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.1111/wrr.13179
Lucas Gallo, Charlene Rae, Sophocles Voineskos, Nina Vestergaard Simonsen, Andrea L. Pusic, Lotte Poulsen, Jens Ahm Sørensen, Anne F. Klassen, Stefan J. Cano
{"title":"WOUND-Q 的进一步心理计量评估:响应性研究","authors":"Lucas Gallo, Charlene Rae, Sophocles Voineskos, Nina Vestergaard Simonsen, Andrea L. Pusic, Lotte Poulsen, Jens Ahm Sørensen, Anne F. Klassen, Stefan J. Cano","doi":"10.1111/wrr.13179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The WOUND‐Q is a modular patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND‐Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND‐Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND‐Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow‐up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND‐Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND‐Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre‐defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor‐based and distribution‐based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND‐Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.","PeriodicalId":23864,"journal":{"name":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","volume":"112 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Further psychometric evaluation of the WOUND‐Q: A responsiveness study\",\"authors\":\"Lucas Gallo, Charlene Rae, Sophocles Voineskos, Nina Vestergaard Simonsen, Andrea L. Pusic, Lotte Poulsen, Jens Ahm Sørensen, Anne F. Klassen, Stefan J. Cano\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/wrr.13179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The WOUND‐Q is a modular patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND‐Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND‐Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND‐Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow‐up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND‐Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND‐Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre‐defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor‐based and distribution‐based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND‐Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound Repair and Regeneration\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound Repair and Regeneration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13179\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13179","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

WOUND-Q 是一种模块化的患者报告结果量表 (PROM),共有 13 个量表,测量 4 个领域(即伤口特征、与健康相关的生活质量、护理体验和伤口治疗)的结构。此前曾对 WOUND-Q 的心理测量学进行过评估,13 个量表具有良好的有效性和可靠性。然而,WOUND-Q 的反应性(即检测临床变化的能力)还有待评估。本研究的目的是评估 9 个 WOUND-Q 量表的响应性,这些量表评估的是 18 岁或以上、有慢性伤口且伤口存在至少 3 个月的人群的结果。这项研究对 421 名参与者进行了为期 4 个月的跟踪调查,这些参与者在之前的心理测量研究中完成了 WOUND-Q 的测试。参与者完成了一项在线调查,回答了有关其当前伤口状态(如数量、类型、大小、气味、引流情况)的问题、有关变化的锚定问题以及他们在初次评估中完成的 WOUND-Q 量表。对预先确定的假设进行了测试,接受阈值为 75%,表明有足够的证据表明存在响应性。此外,还使用基于锚和基于分布的方法计算了最小重要差异(MID)。在 390 名受邀参与者中,有 320 人做出了回应,他们的年龄从 19 岁到 84 岁不等。对假设的接受度从 60% 到 100% 不等,只有症状量表没有达到 75% 的临界值。这项研究结果证明,WOUND-Q 可以有效测量慢性伤口患者的临床变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Further psychometric evaluation of the WOUND‐Q: A responsiveness study
The WOUND‐Q is a modular patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND‐Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND‐Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND‐Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow‐up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND‐Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND‐Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre‐defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor‐based and distribution‐based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND‐Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Wound Repair and Regeneration 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wound Repair and Regeneration provides extensive international coverage of cellular and molecular biology, connective tissue, and biological mediator studies in the field of tissue repair and regeneration and serves a diverse audience of surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and others. Wound Repair and Regeneration is the official journal of The Wound Healing Society, The European Tissue Repair Society, The Japanese Society for Wound Healing, and The Australian Wound Management Association.
期刊最新文献
A novel method to assess photobiomodulation in stimulating regenerative capacity and vascularization in zebrafish. Recent advances in bioactive wound dressings. Comparing mechanical and enzymatic isolation procedures to isolate adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review. Association between venous leg ulcers and knee osteoarthritis: A Mendelian randomization study. Outcomes of dermal substitutes in burns and burn scar reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1