OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire in a Swedish sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty-two patients with endometriosis were included in a prospective observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The changes on the EHP-30 questionnaire after pertubation treatment were compared with the patients' self-estimated change in pain intensity. The responsiveness to change was evaluated with effect sizes and significance of change (paired t-test). The changes in scores between those who improved / not improved were compared with independent t-test. RESULTS: The changes in the scores were significant for all dimensions on the core questionnaire (p = 0.04-0.0002) for improved patients in contrast to the patients in the stable group where there were no significant changes in any dimension (p = 0.16-0.63). The effect sizes were large (> 0.8) on all core scales except for self-image (0.51) for the improved patients and small on all scales in the non-improved (stable) group (- 0.17-0.35). There were significant differences between the improved and the stable group considering change in most of the core EHP-30 scores. CONCLUSIONS: The EHP-30 is responsive to improvement on all core scales and is acceptable, understandable, and applicable in this Swedish sample.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire in a Swedish sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with endometriosis were included in a prospective observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The changes on the EHP-30 questionnaire after pertubation treatment were compared with the patients' self-estimated change in pain intensity. The responsiveness to change was evaluated with effect sizes and significance of change (paired t-test). The changes in scores between those who improved / not improved were compared with independent t-test. RESULTS: The changes in the scores were significant for all dimensions on the core questionnaire (p = 0.04-0.0002) for improved patients in contrast to the patients in the stable group where there were no significant changes in any dimension (p = 0.16-0.63). The effect sizes were large (> 0.8) on all core scales except for self-image (0.51) for the improved patients and small on all scales in the non-improved (stable) group (- 0.17-0.35). There were significant differences between the improved and the stable group considering change in most of the core EHP-30 scores. CONCLUSIONS: The EHP-30 is responsive to improvement on all core scales and is acceptable, understandable, and applicable in this Swedish sample.