首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine >Three little words: an empirical test of the optimum scoring method for the RCP 3 questions
【2h】

Three little words: an empirical test of the optimum scoring method for the RCP 3 questions

机译:三个小词:对RCP 3个问题的最佳评分方法的实证检验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background:The Royal College of Physicians three questions are widely used in clinical practice and research for assessing the impact of asthma on individuals. These simple questions assess core experiences of asthma assessing impact on sleep, daily symptom experiences and interference with normal functioning. The 3 questions are usually scored categorically by eliciting a ‘Yes’ vs. ‘No’ response to each question. Responses are scored 0 or 1 giving a scale score of 0–3 (RCP 0–3). This has the advantage of simplicity and ease of completion. However, the lack of differentiation in the response frame may compromise responsiveness to change. Small but clinically significant changes, such as an improvement from 3 to 1 night of disturbed sleep in a week, might not register if the patient ticks ‘yes’ to indicate that their sleep is still disturbed by asthma. For this reason an alternative response frame has been developed where the patient is asked to indicate the number of times over the past week they have experienced each of the three asthma ‘impacts'. In this method responses are scored 0–7 for each item giving a scale range of 0–21 (RCP 0–21). The aim of the study was to compare the RCP (0–3) against the RCP (0–21) in terms of patient acceptability, sensitivity and concurrent validity. Method: In a cross-sectional survey of community-managed patients at Step 2 or 3 of the asthma guidelines, participants were asked to complete a study questionnaire incorporating the RCP (0–3), RCP (0–21), Juniper's Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and a Medication Adherence Report Scale assessing adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The acceptability of the RCP (90–21) was assessed according to its performance on 3 criteria:1. Equivalent patient acceptability: no significant differences in number of incomplete responses to RCP questions.2. Equivalent validity as a measure of asthma control: correlations between the RCP (0–21) and ACQ should be of a similar order to correlations between the RCP (0–3) and ACQ.3. Sensitivity to treatment: as a preliminary test we hypothesised that, compared with the RCP (0–3), the RCP (0–21) would be more strongly correlated with reported adherence to ICS.
机译:背景:皇家内科医学院的三个问题被广泛用于临床实践和研究中,以评估哮喘对个体的影响。这些简单的问题评估了哮喘的核心经历,评估了对睡眠,每日症状经历和对正常功能的干扰的影响。通常,通过对每个问题分别回答“是”与“否”来对3个问题进行评分。回答的得分为0或1,给出的得分是0-3(RCP 0-3)。这具有简单和易于完成的优点。但是,响应框架中缺乏差异性可能会损害对变化的响应能力。如果患者勾选“是”表示他们的睡眠仍然受到哮喘的干扰,则微小但具有临床意义的变化(例如一周中从3夜改善到1夜)可能无法记录。因此,已经开发出另一种响应框架,要求患者指出过去一周中经历过三种哮喘“影响”的次数。在这种方法中,每个项目的回答得分为0-7,评分范围为0-21(RCP 0-21)。该研究的目的是就患者的可接受性,敏感性和同时有效性方面比较RCP(0–3)与RCP(0–21)。方法:在哮喘指南第2或3步对社区管理患者的横断面调查中,要求参与者填写包含RCP(0-3),RCP(0-21),瞻博网络哮喘控制的研究问卷问卷(ACQ)和药物依从性报告量表,用于评估对吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)的依从性。 RCP(90-21)的可接受性是根据其在以下三个标准上的性能进行评估的:1。等效的患者可接受性:对RCP问题的不完全回答数量无显着差异; 2。用等效效度衡量哮喘控制:RCP(0–21)与ACQ之间的相关性应与RCP(0–3)与ACQ.3之间的相关性相似。对治疗的敏感性:作为一项初步测试,我们假设,与RCP(0-3)相比,RCP(0-21)与已报道的ICS依从性更强相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号