Cargando…
Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item Profile (PROMIS-29) has been widely used to measure health outcomes from the patient’s perspective. It has not been validated in adults with aortic disease. The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and valid...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195330/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35701761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02000-1 |
_version_ | 1784726943323652096 |
---|---|
author | Huang, Wanbing Wu, Qiansheng Zhang, Yufen Tian, Chong Huang, Haishan Huang, Sufang Zhou, Yanrong He, Jing Wang, Hui |
author_facet | Huang, Wanbing Wu, Qiansheng Zhang, Yufen Tian, Chong Huang, Haishan Huang, Sufang Zhou, Yanrong He, Jing Wang, Hui |
author_sort | Huang, Wanbing |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item Profile (PROMIS-29) has been widely used to measure health outcomes from the patient’s perspective. It has not been validated in adults with aortic disease. The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of the Chinese PROMIS-29 among patients undergoing surgery for aortic dissection (AD). METHODS: A cross-sectional design was applied. Eligible patients completed a questionnaire that contained the PROMIS-29 and legacy measures, including the Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), 8-item Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder–2 (GAD-2), and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). The structural validity of the PROMIS-29 was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was evaluated with Cronbach’s α. Construct validity was assessed by calculating Spearman’s rank correlations and comparing known-group differences. RESULTS: In total, a sample of 327 AD patients was included in the final analysis. Most of them were male (89%) with a mean age of 52.7 (± 10.3). CFA revealed good model fit of the seven-factor structure within PROMIS-29, as well as most domains in single-factor analysis. Reliability was confirmed with Cronbach’s α > 0.90. Correlations between comparable domains of the PROMIS-29 and those of legacy questionnaires and most know-group comparisons were observed as hypothesized. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence for acceptable structural validity, construct validity and internal consistency of the PROMIS-29 in a sample of AD patients. It can be applied to AD survivors by researchers or clinicians, measuring outcomes after surgery and identifying those with worse health status. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9195330 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91953302022-06-15 Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection Huang, Wanbing Wu, Qiansheng Zhang, Yufen Tian, Chong Huang, Haishan Huang, Sufang Zhou, Yanrong He, Jing Wang, Hui Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item Profile (PROMIS-29) has been widely used to measure health outcomes from the patient’s perspective. It has not been validated in adults with aortic disease. The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of the Chinese PROMIS-29 among patients undergoing surgery for aortic dissection (AD). METHODS: A cross-sectional design was applied. Eligible patients completed a questionnaire that contained the PROMIS-29 and legacy measures, including the Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), 8-item Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder–2 (GAD-2), and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). The structural validity of the PROMIS-29 was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was evaluated with Cronbach’s α. Construct validity was assessed by calculating Spearman’s rank correlations and comparing known-group differences. RESULTS: In total, a sample of 327 AD patients was included in the final analysis. Most of them were male (89%) with a mean age of 52.7 (± 10.3). CFA revealed good model fit of the seven-factor structure within PROMIS-29, as well as most domains in single-factor analysis. Reliability was confirmed with Cronbach’s α > 0.90. Correlations between comparable domains of the PROMIS-29 and those of legacy questionnaires and most know-group comparisons were observed as hypothesized. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence for acceptable structural validity, construct validity and internal consistency of the PROMIS-29 in a sample of AD patients. It can be applied to AD survivors by researchers or clinicians, measuring outcomes after surgery and identifying those with worse health status. BioMed Central 2022-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9195330/ /pubmed/35701761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02000-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Huang, Wanbing Wu, Qiansheng Zhang, Yufen Tian, Chong Huang, Haishan Huang, Sufang Zhou, Yanrong He, Jing Wang, Hui Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
title | Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
title_full | Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
title_fullStr | Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
title_full_unstemmed | Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
title_short | Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
title_sort | preliminary evaluation of the chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195330/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35701761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02000-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huangwanbing preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT wuqiansheng preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT zhangyufen preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT tianchong preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT huanghaishan preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT huangsufang preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT zhouyanrong preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT hejing preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection AT wanghui preliminaryevaluationofthechineseversionofthepatientreportedoutcomesmeasurementinformationsystem29itemprofileinpatientswithaorticdissection |