乌干达肾脏疾病和短生命质量量表(KDQOL-SF™)1.3版问卷的文化适应和验证

P. Bagasha, R. Naitala, E. Namukwaya, M. Leng, E. Katabira, E. Namisango
{"title":"乌干达肾脏疾病和短生命质量量表(KDQOL-SF™)1.3版问卷的文化适应和验证","authors":"P. Bagasha, R. Naitala, E. Namukwaya, M. Leng, E. Katabira, E. Namisango","doi":"10.21804/25-1-4840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chronic kidney disease is on the rise in sub-Saharan African countries such as Uganda, and patients often present with advanced disease requiring kidney replacement therapies. Health-related quality of life is a key outcome in chronic kidney disease management but, in Uganda, no tools have been validated to measure this. The aim of this study was to culturally adapt and validate the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form version 1.3 (KDQOL-SF™) questionnaire for use in the Ugandan setting. Methods: We conducted a four-phase, mixed-methods study which included translation, cultural adaptation, optimisation of face validity and field testing. Our participants included healthcare workers, and patients aged 18 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2. Results: The tool was culturally adapted and translated into one of the Ugandan languages, Luganda, which, with an English version of the tool, was validated and field tested. Over 80% of the subdomains had less than 10% floor and ceiling effects. For reliability, Cronbach’s α coefficient scores ranged from 0.96 to 0.41, with 10 out of 18 subdomains scoring >0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The tool demonstrated discriminant validity, with patients with comorbidities reporting lower quality of life scores, as postulated. Conclusions: The Luganda and English versions of the KDQOL-SF questionnaire have sufficient face and content validity, reliability and acceptability to assess the quality of life of patients with kidney failure in Uganda. Keywords: quality of life, kidney failure, Uganda, KDQOL-SF, developing countries","PeriodicalId":32934,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Nephrology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural adaptation and validation of the Kidney Disease and Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF™) version 1.3 questionnaire in Uganda\",\"authors\":\"P. Bagasha, R. Naitala, E. Namukwaya, M. Leng, E. Katabira, E. Namisango\",\"doi\":\"10.21804/25-1-4840\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Chronic kidney disease is on the rise in sub-Saharan African countries such as Uganda, and patients often present with advanced disease requiring kidney replacement therapies. Health-related quality of life is a key outcome in chronic kidney disease management but, in Uganda, no tools have been validated to measure this. The aim of this study was to culturally adapt and validate the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form version 1.3 (KDQOL-SF™) questionnaire for use in the Ugandan setting. Methods: We conducted a four-phase, mixed-methods study which included translation, cultural adaptation, optimisation of face validity and field testing. Our participants included healthcare workers, and patients aged 18 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2. Results: The tool was culturally adapted and translated into one of the Ugandan languages, Luganda, which, with an English version of the tool, was validated and field tested. Over 80% of the subdomains had less than 10% floor and ceiling effects. For reliability, Cronbach’s α coefficient scores ranged from 0.96 to 0.41, with 10 out of 18 subdomains scoring >0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The tool demonstrated discriminant validity, with patients with comorbidities reporting lower quality of life scores, as postulated. Conclusions: The Luganda and English versions of the KDQOL-SF questionnaire have sufficient face and content validity, reliability and acceptability to assess the quality of life of patients with kidney failure in Uganda. Keywords: quality of life, kidney failure, Uganda, KDQOL-SF, developing countries\",\"PeriodicalId\":32934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Nephrology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Nephrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21804/25-1-4840\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21804/25-1-4840","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性肾脏疾病在撒哈拉以南非洲国家如乌干达呈上升趋势,患者往往表现为晚期疾病需要肾脏替代治疗。与健康有关的生活质量是慢性肾脏疾病管理的一个关键成果,但在乌干达,尚未验证任何工具来衡量这一点。本研究的目的是文化适应和验证在乌干达环境中使用的肾脏疾病短生命质量表1.3版(KDQOL-SF™)问卷。方法:我们进行了四阶段的混合方法研究,包括翻译、文化适应、面部效度优化和现场测试。我们的参与者包括医护人员和18岁的患者,肾小球滤过率估计为0.70,表明可接受的内部一致性。该工具显示了判别效度,如假设的那样,有合并症的患者报告的生活质量评分较低。结论:卢甘达语版和英语版KDQOL-SF问卷具有足够的面效度和内容效度、信度和可接受性,可用于评估乌干达肾衰竭患者的生活质量。关键词:生活质量,肾衰竭,乌干达,KDQOL-SF,发展中国家
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
Cultural adaptation and validation of the Kidney Disease and Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF™) version 1.3 questionnaire in Uganda
Background: Chronic kidney disease is on the rise in sub-Saharan African countries such as Uganda, and patients often present with advanced disease requiring kidney replacement therapies. Health-related quality of life is a key outcome in chronic kidney disease management but, in Uganda, no tools have been validated to measure this. The aim of this study was to culturally adapt and validate the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form version 1.3 (KDQOL-SF™) questionnaire for use in the Ugandan setting. Methods: We conducted a four-phase, mixed-methods study which included translation, cultural adaptation, optimisation of face validity and field testing. Our participants included healthcare workers, and patients aged 18 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2. Results: The tool was culturally adapted and translated into one of the Ugandan languages, Luganda, which, with an English version of the tool, was validated and field tested. Over 80% of the subdomains had less than 10% floor and ceiling effects. For reliability, Cronbach’s α coefficient scores ranged from 0.96 to 0.41, with 10 out of 18 subdomains scoring >0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The tool demonstrated discriminant validity, with patients with comorbidities reporting lower quality of life scores, as postulated. Conclusions: The Luganda and English versions of the KDQOL-SF questionnaire have sufficient face and content validity, reliability and acceptability to assess the quality of life of patients with kidney failure in Uganda. Keywords: quality of life, kidney failure, Uganda, KDQOL-SF, developing countries
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Quality of life of patients with kidney failure in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a systematic review of quantitative studies Acute kidney injury and in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 in Ghana – a single centre study Patterns of biopsy-proven kidney disease amongst South African adults from 1995 to 2017 Vascular access in Senegalese patients starting chronic haemodialysis From Alpha to Omicron: anatomy of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in an outpatient haemodialysis unit in Johannesburg, South Africa
×
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