PURPOSE: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity. METHODS: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital. RESULTS: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.
PURPOSE: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity. METHODS: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital. RESULTS: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.
Authors: Leona Kim-Schluger; Sander S Florman; Thomas Schiano; Marian O'Rourke; Rosemarie Gagliardi; Martin Drooker; Sukru Emre; Thomas M Fishbein; Patricia A Sheiner; Myron E Schwartz; Charles M Miller Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-05-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: J F Trotter; M Talamantes; M McClure; M Wachs; T Bak; T Trouillot; M Kugelmas; G T Everson; I Kam Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Jennifer E Verbesey; Mary Ann Simpson; James J Pomposelli; Eric Richman; Alyson M Bracken; Kathryn Garrigan; Hong Chang; Roger L Jenkins; Elizabeth A Pomfret Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: See Ching Chan; Chi Leung Liu; Chung Mau Lo; Banny K Lam; Evelyn W Lee; Sheung Tat Fan Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: D A DuBay; S Holtzman; L Adcock; S Abbey; S Greenwood; C Macleod; A Kashfi; M Jacob; E L Renner; D R Grant; G A Levy; G Therapondos Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Daniela P Ladner; Mary Amanda Dew; Sarah Forney; Brenda W Gillespie; Robert S Brown; Robert M Merion; Chris E Freise; Paul H Hayashi; Johnny C Hong; April Ashworth; Carl L Berg; James R Burton; Abraham Shaked; Zeeshan Butt Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 30.083