健康生命量表应用于自动化腹膜透析和持续非卧床腹膜透析患者生命质量评价的信效度研究

罗纪聪; 赵景宏; 成琼; 梁艳; 郭佳; 刘大双; 邓笠

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2020.07.004

中国血液净化 >

2020 , Vol. 19 >Issue 07: 445 - 448

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2020.07.004

临床研究

健康生命量表应用于自动化腹膜透析和持续非卧床腹膜透析患者生命质量评价的信效度研究

罗纪聪 ,
赵景宏 ,
成琼 ,
梁艳 ,
郭佳 ,
刘大双 ,
邓笠

展开

1中国人民解放军陆军军医大学第二附属医院肾内科

收稿日期: 2019-12-02

修回日期: 2020-04-23

网络出版日期: 2020-07-03

基金资助

全军医学科技青年培训计划项目(19QNP013)

收起

Reliability and validity of Chinese version of SF-36 scale for quality of life evaluation in automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients

LUO Ji-Cong ,
ZHAO Jing-Hong ,
CHENG Qiong ,
LIANG Yan ,
GUO Jia ,
LIU Da-Shuang ,
DENG Li

Expand

1Department of Nephrology, the Second Hospital Affiliated to PLA Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, China

Received date: 2019-12-02

Revised date: 2020-04-23

Online published: 2020-07-03

Fold

摘要

【摘要】目的基于陆军军医大学第二附属医院肾内科管理的腹膜透析患者数据，应用健康生命量表(the MOS item short form health survey, SF-36)对自动化腹膜透析(automated peritoneal dialysis, APD)患者及持续非卧床腹膜透析(continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis，CAPD)患者进行多维度分析。方法采用目的抽样方法对2018 年1 月～2019 年6 月期间在陆军军医大学第二附属医院肾内科置管并行腹膜透析治疗的患者使用SF-36 量表进行问卷填写，共收回有效问卷241 份，其中APD 组135 份，CAPD 组106 份，通过信度以及集合效度、区分效度和结构效度等维度进行综合分析，从而得出2 组患者在社会回归方面的结果。结果APD 组和CAPD 组总体Cronbach’sα 系数分别为0.93 和0.92，2 组量表均有良好的内部一致性信度。APD 组(n=135)和CAPD 组(n=106)样本的集合效度成功率分别为83%和93%，区分效度试验成功率分别为96%和98%，APD 和CAPD 具有良好的集合效度及区分效度(APD 组Cronbach’sα=
0.93，CAPD 组Cronbach’sα=0.92，P 值分别为0.034 和0.025)；标准效度方面，APD 组样本的标准与量表得分计算的秩相关系数0.593 大于CAPD 组0.403,P 值分别为0.320 和0.300，SF-36 量表用于APD 组样本具有更加良好的标准关联效度；结构效度，2 组数据非标准化因子载荷系数的t 检验均显现出所有载荷系数在0.1 水平上，并具有统计学意义(APD 组t＞0.1,CAPD 组t＞0.1,P 值分别为0.017 和0.030)，这说明量表条目设定在2 组中均是合理的。结论SF-36 量表用于腹膜透析患者生命质量统计分析具有良好的信度和效度，APD 组内部信度以及标准关联效度等方面要优于CAPD 组，提示APD 患者在社会回归和情感功能等的优势。

关键词： 腹膜透析; 健康生命量表; 社会回归; 自动化腹膜透析; 统计

本文引用格式

罗纪聪 , 赵景宏 , 成琼 , 梁艳 , 郭佳 , 刘大双 , 邓笠 . 健康生命量表应用于自动化腹膜透析和持续非卧床腹膜透析患者生命质量评价的信效度研究[J]. 中国血液净化, 2020 , 19(07) : 445 -448 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4091.2020.07.004

Abstract

【Abstract】Objective Based on the data from new peritoneal dialysis patient treated in the Department of Nephrology, Xinqiao Hospital of Army Medical University, multidimensional analyses on patients with automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) were performed by using the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire. Methods Purpose sampling method was used to investigate the peritoneal dialysis patients treated in the Department of Nephrology, the Second Hospital of PLA Military Medical University in the period from January 2018 to June 2019 by using the questionnaire of SF-36 scale. A total of 241 valid questionnaires were received, including 135 questionnaires from APD group and 106 from CAPD group. Their reliability and the dimensions of collective validity, discriminant validity and structural validity were comprehensively analyzed to obtain the results of social regression in the two groups of patients. Results The overall Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.93 and 0.92 in APD group and CAPD group respectively, with better internal consistency reliability in both groups. The success rates of collective validity of the samples were 83% and 93%, and the success rates of discrimination validity tests were 96% and 98% in APD
group (n=135) and CAPD group (n=106) respectively. Both groups had better collective validity and discrimination validity (Cronbach’s α=0.93 and 0.92, P=0.034 and 0.025 in APD group and CAPD group respectively). For standard validity, the rank correlation coefficient calculated by the standard and scale scores of the samples in APD group was 0.593, greater than 0.403 in CAPD group (P=0.320 and 0.300 respectively), suggesting that SF-36 scale has better standard correlation validity used in APD group. For structural validity, the t-test of the unstandardized factor load coefficients demonstrated that the load coefficients were statistically significant at >0.1 level in both groups (P=0.017 and 0.030 for APD group and CAPD group respectively), indicating

that the designed entries in the scale are informative for both groups. Conclusion The SF-36 scale has good reliability and validity for statistical analysis of quality of life in peritoneal dialysis patients, and the internal reliability and standard correlation validity are better for APD group than for CAPD group, suggesting that social function and emotional state are better in APD patients than in CAPD patients.

Key words： Peritoneal dialysis; SF36; Social regression; Automated peritoneal dialysis; Statistics

参考文献

[1] Salim S, Yamin M, Alwi I, et al. Validity and Reliability of the In-donesian Version of SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire on Patients with Permanent Pacemakers[J]. Acta Med Indones, 2017, 49(1):10
[2] Vilagut G, Valderas J M, Ferrer M, et al. Interpretation of SF-36 and SF-12 questionnaires in Spain: physical and mental components[J]. Med Clin (Barc), 2008, 130:726
[3] Rachel Mann, Simon Gilbody, David Richards. Putting the 'Q' in depression QALYs: A comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D health related quality of life measures[J]. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2008, 44(7):569-578.
[4] 李鲁, 王红妹, 沈毅. SF-36健康调查量表中文版的研制及其性能测试[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2002(02):38-42.
[5] 许军, 胡敏燕, 杨云滨, et al. 健康测量量表SF-36[J]. 中国行为医学科学, 1999(2):150-152.
[6] 姜敏敏, 李鲁. SF-36量表在血透患者中的性能测试[J]. 中国行为医学科学, 2003(01):31-33.
[7] 文吉秋, 纪玉莲, 郑智华, et al. 血液透析、腹膜透析和肾移植的成本-效果分析[J]. 中华肾脏病杂志, 2005, 21(10):616-619.
[8] 张磊, 黄久仪, 范凤美, et al. 美国简明健康测量量表与中国老年人生活质量调查表的对比研究[J]. 中国行为医学科学, 2001(06):86-87.
[9] 付华鹏[1], 刘扬[1], 刘红波[1], et al. SF-36健康调查量表应用于城市贫困人群的信度和效度[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2004(2).
[10] 李艳敏. 应用SF36量表评估中轴型SpA患者非甾体抗炎药治疗前后生活质量变化[D].
[11] 万巧琴, 王蕾, 许春娟, et al. 护士组织公民行为量表的信度、效度检验[J]. 中国护理管理, 2015, 15(6):663-666.
[12] 李玉, 刘俐惠, 石增霞, et al. 中文版肿瘤信息满意度量表在头颈肿瘤患者中的信效度分析[J]. 护理学报, 2019(9):10-15.
[13] SF-36量表应用于晚期血吸虫病患者的信度和效度分析[J]. 中国血吸虫病防治杂志, 2010(01):46-52.
[14] Standaert B , Dort T , Linden J , et al. Usability of daily SF36 questionnaires to capture the QALD variation experienced after vaccination with AS03A-adjuvanted monovalent influenza A (H5N1) vaccine in a safety and tolerability study[J]. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2019, 17(1).
[15] 效标关联效度[J]. 中国护理管理, 2016.
[16] 郝元涛, 方积乾. 世界卫生组织生存质量测定量表中文版介绍及其使用说明[J]. 现代康复, 2000, 4(8):1127-1129.
[17] 史静琤, 莫显昆, Xiankun M O . 量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J]. 中南大学学报(医学版), 2012, 37(2):152-155.
[18] 卓滋泽, 孙鑫, 吕春梅, et al. 基于二阶因子模型的北京市三甲医院职工工作满意度评价[J]. 医学与社会, 2016, 29(5):104-107.
[19] 林少炜, 吴思英, 李煌元, et al. 临床医生亚健康状态高阶因子模型分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2012, 28(1):83-84.
[20] 蒙世佼, 闫宇翔, 刘佑琴, et al. 基于二阶因子模型的工作应激评价实证研究[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2013, 30(5):661-664.
[21] 马路, 吴超联, 申明达, et al. 军队某部干部亚健康状态二阶因子模型的建立与分析[J]. 中华保健医学杂志, 2016(3):200-202.
[22] 邵思佳, 刘志红 . 狼疮性肾炎流行病学特点的变迁[J]. 肾脏病与透析肾移植杂志, 2017.

Options

文章导航

模态框（Modal）标题

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract

参考文献