Jaume Ferrer1,2,3, Galo Granados1,2, Santos Hernández4, María-Jesús Cruz1,3, Júlia Sampol1,4, Daniel Álvarez Simón1, José-María Ramada5,6,7. 1. Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, 08035 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Departamento de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193 Barcelona, Spain. 3. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), 08036 Barcelona, Spain. 4. Institut Català de Seguretat i Salut Laboral, Departament de Treball, Afers Socials i Famílies, Generalitat de Catalunya, 08019 Barcelona, Spain. 5. Centro de Investigación en Salud Laboral, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 6. Instituto Hospital del Mar de Investigaciones Médicas (IMIM), Parc de Salut Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 7. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The seven-item QEAS-7 questionnaire (exposure to asbestos questionnaire) has been designed as a useful and simple tool to establish the probability of exposure to asbestos. The objective of the present study is to validate the QEAS-7 following the recommended methodology. METHODS: The QEAS-7 was prospectively administered to 90 subjects with and without asbestos-related disease (ARD), on two consecutive occasions by two independent researchers. Logical and content validity was evaluated by a committee of experts and construct validity through hypothesis testing. Intra- and interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen's Kappa index (κ), which was estimated as weak if below 0.40, moderate if between 0.41 and 0.60 and good/very good if above 0.60. The comparison between proportions was examined using Pearson's Chi-square test. RESULTS: The majority of participants (88.9%) were male. Mean age was 70.8 years (SD = 8.4) and most of the sample had completed primary education but had not progressed further (62.2%). Forty-three had ARD. The logical, content and construct validity of the QEAS-7 was considered adequate both by a committee of experts and by the users interviewed. The mean administration time was 9 min and 25 s (SD = 3 min and 49 s). The verification of the five hypotheses confirmed the construct validity and the intra- and interobserver reliability to be κ = 0.93 and κ = 0.50 respectively. The concordance in the estimation of asbestos exposure was κ = 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: The QEAS-7 is a simple, valid and reliable tool for estimating the probability of exposure to asbestos. Its application in clinical practice appears justified. What is already known about this subject? No studies have been published to date on the validation of specific questionnaires designed to determine asbestos exposure for routine use by healthcare staff in the clinical setting. What are the new findings? This questionnaire can be considered a comprehensible, viable, valid and reliable instrument for identifying exposure to asbestos. Its brevity and simplicity of administration make it ideally suited for use in daily clinical practice. How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future? This questionnaire can be of help for physicians attending to patients with suspected asbestos-related diseases both in the hospital and in the primary care setting.
INTRODUCTION: The seven-item QEAS-7 questionnaire (exposure to asbestos questionnaire) has been designed as a useful and simple tool to establish the probability of exposure to asbestos. The objective of the present study is to validate the QEAS-7 following the recommended methodology. METHODS: The QEAS-7 was prospectively administered to 90 subjects with and without asbestos-related disease (ARD), on two consecutive occasions by two independent researchers. Logical and content validity was evaluated by a committee of experts and construct validity through hypothesis testing. Intra- and interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen's Kappa index (κ), which was estimated as weak if below 0.40, moderate if between 0.41 and 0.60 and good/very good if above 0.60. The comparison between proportions was examined using Pearson's Chi-square test. RESULTS: The majority of participants (88.9%) were male. Mean age was 70.8 years (SD = 8.4) and most of the sample had completed primary education but had not progressed further (62.2%). Forty-three had ARD. The logical, content and construct validity of the QEAS-7 was considered adequate both by a committee of experts and by the users interviewed. The mean administration time was 9 min and 25 s (SD = 3 min and 49 s). The verification of the five hypotheses confirmed the construct validity and the intra- and interobserver reliability to be κ = 0.93 and κ = 0.50 respectively. The concordance in the estimation of asbestos exposure was κ = 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: The QEAS-7 is a simple, valid and reliable tool for estimating the probability of exposure to asbestos. Its application in clinical practice appears justified. What is already known about this subject? No studies have been published to date on the validation of specific questionnaires designed to determine asbestos exposure for routine use by healthcare staff in the clinical setting. What are the new findings? This questionnaire can be considered a comprehensible, viable, valid and reliable instrument for identifying exposure to asbestos. Its brevity and simplicity of administration make it ideally suited for use in daily clinical practice. How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future? This questionnaire can be of help for physicians attending to patients with suspected asbestos-related diseases both in the hospital and in the primary care setting.
Authors: A Agudo; C A González; M J Bleda; J Ramírez; S Hernández; F López; A Calleja; R Panadès; D Turuguet; A Escolar; M Beltrán; J E González-Moya Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Andrea Bloise; Donatella Barca; Alessandro Francesco Gualtieri; Simone Pollastri; Elena Belluso Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 8.071
Authors: María Jesús Cruz; Victor Curull; Lara Pijuan; Daniel Álvarez-Simón; Albert Sánchez-Font; Javier de Gracia; Mario Culebras; Jaume Ferrer Journal: Arch Bronconeumol Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Eve Bourgkard; Pascal Wild; Maria Gonzalez; Joëlle Févotte; Emmanuelle Penven; Christophe Paris Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Sugio Furuya; Odgerel Chimed-Ochir; Ken Takahashi; Annette David; Jukka Takala Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390