Cargando…

Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the use of the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument (NCSI) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) in providing a detailed assessment of health status of Q-fever patients and to evaluate which subdomains within the NCSI and SF-36 measure unique aspects of health st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Loenhout, Joris AF, Paget, W John, Sandker, Gerwin W, Hautvast, Jeannine LA, van der Velden, Koos, Vercoulen, Jan H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23826639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-112
_version_ 1782275884881805312
author van Loenhout, Joris AF
Paget, W John
Sandker, Gerwin W
Hautvast, Jeannine LA
van der Velden, Koos
Vercoulen, Jan H
author_facet van Loenhout, Joris AF
Paget, W John
Sandker, Gerwin W
Hautvast, Jeannine LA
van der Velden, Koos
Vercoulen, Jan H
author_sort van Loenhout, Joris AF
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the use of the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument (NCSI) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) in providing a detailed assessment of health status of Q-fever patients and to evaluate which subdomains within the NCSI and SF-36 measure unique aspects of health status. FINDINGS: Patients received a study questionnaire, which contained the NCSI and SF-36. Pearson correlation coefficients between subdomains of the instruments were calculated. The response rate was 94% (309 out of 330 eligible patients). Intercorrelations between subdomains of the NCSI were generally lower than of the SF-36. Four subdomains of the NCSI showed conceptual similarity (Pearson’s r ≥ .70) with one or more subdomains of the SF-36 and vice versa. Subdomains that showed no conceptual similarity were NCSI Subjective Pulmonary Symptoms, Subjective Impairment, Dyspnoea Emotions and Satisfaction Relations, and SF-36 Social functioning, Bodily Pain, Role Physical and Role Emotional. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that either the NCSI or SF-36 can be used to measure health status in Q-fever patients. When the aim is to obtain a detailed overview of the patients’ health, a combination of the two instruments, consisting of the complete NCSI and the four unique subdomains of the SF-36, is preferred.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3703294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37032942013-07-07 Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36 van Loenhout, Joris AF Paget, W John Sandker, Gerwin W Hautvast, Jeannine LA van der Velden, Koos Vercoulen, Jan H Health Qual Life Outcomes Short Report BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the use of the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument (NCSI) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) in providing a detailed assessment of health status of Q-fever patients and to evaluate which subdomains within the NCSI and SF-36 measure unique aspects of health status. FINDINGS: Patients received a study questionnaire, which contained the NCSI and SF-36. Pearson correlation coefficients between subdomains of the instruments were calculated. The response rate was 94% (309 out of 330 eligible patients). Intercorrelations between subdomains of the NCSI were generally lower than of the SF-36. Four subdomains of the NCSI showed conceptual similarity (Pearson’s r ≥ .70) with one or more subdomains of the SF-36 and vice versa. Subdomains that showed no conceptual similarity were NCSI Subjective Pulmonary Symptoms, Subjective Impairment, Dyspnoea Emotions and Satisfaction Relations, and SF-36 Social functioning, Bodily Pain, Role Physical and Role Emotional. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that either the NCSI or SF-36 can be used to measure health status in Q-fever patients. When the aim is to obtain a detailed overview of the patients’ health, a combination of the two instruments, consisting of the complete NCSI and the four unique subdomains of the SF-36, is preferred. BioMed Central 2013-07-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3703294/ /pubmed/23826639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-112 Text en Copyright © 2013 van Loenhout et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Short Report
van Loenhout, Joris AF
Paget, W John
Sandker, Gerwin W
Hautvast, Jeannine LA
van der Velden, Koos
Vercoulen, Jan H
Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36
title Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36
title_full Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36
title_fullStr Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36
title_full_unstemmed Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36
title_short Assessing health status and quality of life of Q-fever patients: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument versus the Short Form 36
title_sort assessing health status and quality of life of q-fever patients: the nijmegen clinical screening instrument versus the short form 36
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23826639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-112
work_keys_str_mv AT vanloenhoutjorisaf assessinghealthstatusandqualityoflifeofqfeverpatientsthenijmegenclinicalscreeninginstrumentversustheshortform36
AT pagetwjohn assessinghealthstatusandqualityoflifeofqfeverpatientsthenijmegenclinicalscreeninginstrumentversustheshortform36
AT sandkergerwinw assessinghealthstatusandqualityoflifeofqfeverpatientsthenijmegenclinicalscreeninginstrumentversustheshortform36
AT hautvastjeanninela assessinghealthstatusandqualityoflifeofqfeverpatientsthenijmegenclinicalscreeninginstrumentversustheshortform36
AT vanderveldenkoos assessinghealthstatusandqualityoflifeofqfeverpatientsthenijmegenclinicalscreeninginstrumentversustheshortform36
AT vercoulenjanh assessinghealthstatusandqualityoflifeofqfeverpatientsthenijmegenclinicalscreeninginstrumentversustheshortform36