OBJECTIVE: To further examine the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the uterine fibroid symptom and quality-of-life (UFS-QOL) questionnaire among women with and without uterine fibroids. METHODS: A multicenter, non-randomized, prospective study was conducted with women undergoing treatment for uterine fibroids (fibroid treatment group [FTG]) and normal controls (normal control group [NCG]). Women in the FTG were recruited when they were scheduled for treatment; women in the NCG were recruited during their annual exam. Participants completed the UFS-QOL and a short form 36 health survey (SF-36) at enrollment and at 6 and 12 months. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's correlations, t tests, and general linear models were used to analyze the internal consistency and test-retest reliability, concurrent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness of the UFS-QOL. RESULTS: There were 89 NCG and 234 FTG women who completed the study. Mean age was 43.1 years for FTG and 40.8 for NCG (P < 0.001). The FTG reported significantly greater symptom severity and worse health-related quality of life (HRQL) than the NCG (all UFS-QOL subscales P < 0.001). The UFS-QOL subscales were significantly correlated in the expected direction and magnitude with each SF-36 subscale in the FTG, indicating acceptable concurrent validity. Cronbach's alphas were 0.73 to 0.97, reflecting adequate internal consistency. Each UFS-QOL subscale was responsive to changes after treatment in the FTG with effect sizes ranging between 1.1 and -2.35. The UFS-QOL remained stable in the NCG during the 1 year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The UFS-QOL is a valid and reliable measure to assess symptoms and HRQL in women with uterine fibroids and is highly responsive to treatment-related changes.
OBJECTIVE: To further examine the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the uterine fibroid symptom and quality-of-life (UFS-QOL) questionnaire among women with and without uterine fibroids. METHODS: A multicenter, non-randomized, prospective study was conducted with women undergoing treatment for uterine fibroids (fibroid treatment group [FTG]) and normal controls (normal control group [NCG]). Women in the FTG were recruited when they were scheduled for treatment; women in the NCG were recruited during their annual exam. Participants completed the UFS-QOL and a short form 36 health survey (SF-36) at enrollment and at 6 and 12 months. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's correlations, t tests, and general linear models were used to analyze the internal consistency and test-retest reliability, concurrent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness of the UFS-QOL. RESULTS: There were 89 NCG and 234 FTGwomen who completed the study. Mean age was 43.1 years for FTG and 40.8 for NCG (P < 0.001). The FTG reported significantly greater symptom severity and worse health-related quality of life (HRQL) than the NCG (all UFS-QOL subscales P < 0.001). The UFS-QOL subscales were significantly correlated in the expected direction and magnitude with each SF-36 subscale in the FTG, indicating acceptable concurrent validity. Cronbach's alphas were 0.73 to 0.97, reflecting adequate internal consistency. Each UFS-QOL subscale was responsive to changes after treatment in the FTG with effect sizes ranging between 1.1 and -2.35. The UFS-QOL remained stable in the NCG during the 1 year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The UFS-QOL is a valid and reliable measure to assess symptoms and HRQL in women with uterine fibroids and is highly responsive to treatment-related changes.
Authors: Julius Chapiro; Rafael Duran; MingDe Lin; John D Werner; Zhijun Wang; Rüdiger Schernthaner; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Mark L Lessne; Jean-François Geschwind; Kelvin Hong Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso; Emily P Barnard; Ahmed M AbdElmagied; Lisa E Vaughan; Amy L Weaver; Gina K Hesley; David A Woodrum; Vanessa L Jacoby; Maureen P Kohi; Thomas M Price; Angel Nieves; Michael J Miller; Bijan J Borah; James P Moriarty; Krzysztof R Gorny; Phyllis C Leppert; Amanda L Severson; Maureen A Lemens; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: M Hahn; S Brucker; D Kraemer; M Wallwiener; F-A Taran; C W Wallwiener; B Krämer Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Jane Daniels; Lee J Middleton; Versha Cheed; William McKinnon; Dikshyanta Rana; Fusun Sirkeci; Isaac Manyonda; Anna-Maria Belli; Mary Ann Lumsden; Jonathan Moss; Olivia Wu; Klim McPherson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 4.106
Authors: Olga Bougie; Mohamed A Bedaiwy; Philippe Laberge; Gerald Lebovic; Nicholas Leyland; Mostafa Atri; Ally Murji Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-08-12
Authors: Andrea S Lukes; David Soper; Amanda Harrington; Vilma Sniukiene; Yifan Mo; Patrick Gillard; Lee Shulman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Christina K Rasmussen; Estrid S Hansen; Sham Al-Mashadi Dahl; Erik Ernst; Margit Dueholm Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X Date: 2019-04-30
Authors: Elizabeth A Stewart; Barbara L Lytle; Laine Thomas; Ganesa R Wegienka; Vanessa Jacoby; Michael P Diamond; Wanda K Nicholson; Raymond M Anchan; Sateria Venable; Kedra Wallace; Erica E Marsh; George L Maxwell; Bijan J Borah; William H Catherino; Evan R Myers Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Richard S Guido; James A Macer; Karen Abbott; Janice L Falls; Ian B Tilley; Scott G Chudnoff Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 3.186