Literature DB >> 10413393

An international comparison of the reliability and responsiveness of the Duke Health Profile for measuring health-related quality of life of patients treated with alprostadil for erectile dysfunction.

G R Parkerson1, R J Willke, R D Hays.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: It is important that health measures are both reliable and responsive to clinical change. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and responsiveness of the physical, mental, and social health scales of the Duke Health Profile (DUKE).
METHODS: Impotent males self-administered the Duke Health Profile before and during treatment with alprostadil for erectile dysfunction during a 19-month period. Subjects were 490 patients in the United States and 583 patients in 12 other countries. Each of the three basic Duke Health Profile scales has only five items, and each is heterogeneous because each measures more than one health concept.
RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates were: physical health, 0.68 for United States and 0.64 for other countries; mental health, 0.62 and 0.52, respectively; and social health, 0.53 and 0.47, respectively. Alprostadil was expected to improve mental health primarily, and results of the study were consistent with this hypothesis. For example, at approximately 14 months from therapy onset, mental health improved for patients both in the United States (standardized response mean, SRM, = 0.17) and other countries (mean SRM = 0.30), whereas physical health worsened in the United States and was unchanged in other countries, and social health was unchanged in the United States and improved in other countries. Maximum responsiveness was shown for mental health in the other countries, where the mean standardized response means at four follow-ups during a 19-month period were 0.11, 0.21, 0.30, and 0.36.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the responsiveness of the Duke Health Profile mental health scale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10413393     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199901000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  6 in total

1.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The ED-EQoL: the development of a new quality of life measure for patients with erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  R P MacDonagh; T Porter; D Pontin; P Ewings
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research.

Authors:  Berrie Middel; Eric van Sonderen
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2002-12-17       Impact factor: 5.120

4.  Systematic review of 29 self-report instruments for assessing quality of life in older adults receiving aged care services.

Authors:  Joyce Siette; Gilbert Thomas Knaggs; Yvonne Zurynski; Julie Ratcliffe; Laura Dodds; Johanna Westbrook
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Responsiveness of the domain climbing up and going down stairs of the Functional Evaluation scale for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: a one-year follow-up.

Authors:  Priscila S Albuquerque; Mariana C Voos; Mariene S Simões; Joyce Martini; Carlos B M Monteiro; Fatima A Caromano
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  UniMóvil: A Mobile Health Clinic Providing Primary Care to the Colonias of the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas.

Authors:  Eron G Manusov; Vincent P Diego; Jacob Smith; Jesús R Garza; John Lowdermilk; John Blangero; Sarah Williams-Blangero; Francisco Fernandez
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2019-08-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.