Objective To investigate the scientificity of patient-reported outcomes instrument for asthma ( Asthma-PRO) , which maybe used to evaluate the efficacy of anti-asthma drugs in clinical trials and clinical practice.Methods 366 asthma patients and 100 healthy subjects were face-to-face interviewed by well-trained investigators, and the data of Asthma-PRO instrument were collected. The psychometric performance such as reliability, validity, responsiveness and clinical feasibility in the Asthma-PRO instrument was evaluated. Results The split-half reliabilities of the Asthma-PRO instrument and each dimension were greater than 0.8. In the analysis of internal consistency of each dimension, the cronbach’s alpha coefficient was greater than 0.7. Factor analysis showed that the instrument has good construct validity. The scores of each of the facets and total scores between the asthma patients and the healthy subjects were different. The recovery rate and the efficient rate of the questionnaire were more than 95%, and the time required to complete a questionnaire was within 20 minutes, indicating that the scale had a high clinical feasibility. Conclusion The Asthma-PRO instrument has good reliability, validity, responsiveness and clinical feasibility.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability,validity and feasibility of a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) scale in the subjects with respiratory failure. Methods364 patients with chronic respiratory failure and 97 healthy subjects were face-to-face interviewed by well-trained investigators,and the data of respiratory failure -PRO instrument were collected. The psychometric performance such as reliability,validity,responsiveness and clinical feasibility in the respiratory failure -PRO instrument was evaluated. ResultsThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the respiratory failure -PRO instrument and each dimension were greater than 0.7. Factor analysis showed that the instrument had good construct validity. The scores of each of the facets and total scores between the patients and the healthy subjects were different. The recovery rate and the efficient rate of the questionnaire were more than 95%,and the time required to complete a questionnaire was within 15 minutes,indicating that the scale had a high clinical feasibility. ConclusionThe respiratory failure -PRO instrument has good reliability,validity,responsiveness and clinical feasibility.
Objective To analyze the changes of perioperative symptoms of lung cancer patients by using patient-reported outcomes at different time points. MethodsA total of 109 patients who underwent thoracoscopic lung cancer resection in the department of thoracic surgery of our hospital from March to April 2021 were selected, including 55 (50.46%) males and 54 (49.54%) females. The mean age was 55.19±12.12 years. The postoperative symptom scale for lung cancer patients was used to investigate the changes of symptoms before surgery, 1 day after surgery, the day of discharge, and 30 days after surgery. Results The mean hospital stay was 6.89±2.25 days. None of the patients reported any clinical symptoms related to lung cancer before surgery. The most prominent symptoms 1 day after surgery were pain (3.33±0.96 points), nausea (2.81±1.18 points), dizziness (2.00±0.85 points), fatigue (1.89±0.79 points) and shortness of breath (1.79±1.37 points). The patients with dizziness, nausea, fatigue and other symptoms gradually decreased, and the symptoms were relieved significantly (P<0.05). However, the symptoms of conscious pain, cough and shortness of breath lasted for a long time. At 30 days after surgery, 70.64%, 64.22% and 33.03% of patients felt pain, cough and shortness of breath, respectively, and the degree of cough was aggravated (P<0.001). Conclusion Pain, cough, dizziness, shortness of breath and fatigue are the core postoperative symptoms of lung cancer patients. Most postoperative adverse symptoms can be effectively controlled in a short period of time, but pain, cough and shortness of breath still present persistent characteristics, which deserve further study.
With the transformation of modern medical models, patient-reported outcomes, clinician-reported outcomes, observer-reported outcomes, and performance outcomes have become internationally recognized clinical outcome assessment indicators, and scales have also become important evaluation tools, among which translation and cross-cultural adaptation are one of the important sources of scales. However, at present, there are fewer guidelines for scale translation in China. At present, domestic scale translation has not yet been unified and standardized in clinical reporting. Most translation reports provide readers with incomplete information, which affects the development of scale translation, and the methodology related to the translation of clinical outcome assessment scales still focuses on patient-reported outcome scales, which creates a gap in terms of the recommendations for the rest of the types of translations, a gap which leads to inconsistencies in the translation methodology and process. In this paper, we will develop specific translation methods and processes for each of the four current types of clinical outcome assessments by combining scale translation guidelines to support a standardized approach to translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation for use in standardizing the process of recommending translations of patient-reported outcome scales, clinical-reported outcome scales, observer-reported outcome scales, and behavioral outcome scales.