2种量表用于慢性伤口患者生活质量测评的对比研究

doi:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2023.05.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的比较健康调查问卷（Short Form-36 Health Survey，SF-36）和欧洲五维度健康量表（Euro Quality of Life Five-Dimensional Questionnaire，EQ-5D）用于慢性伤口患者生活质量测评的信效度及其对不同维度测评效果的异同。方法采用方便抽样，于2019年7月—2022年2月选取在北京市某三级甲等医院创面治疗中心就诊的慢性伤口患者作为调查对象，使用自设问卷收集患者的一般资料和疾病相关资料，采用SF-36及EQ-5D调查患者的生活质量。结合2个量表反映出的慢性伤口患者生活质量现况，从内部一致性、得分相关性及其对伤口特征指标分组患者的得分差异进行对比分析。结果共纳入144例患者，其SF-36的生理健康总分为（224.52±94.36）分，心理健康总分为（282.88±90.77）分。EQ-5D效用值得分为（0.73±0.23）分，EQ视觉模拟标尺得分为（72.90±20.60）分。SF-36各分量表与EQ-5D的Cronbach’s α系数分别为0.694~0.957和0.757，2个量表得分呈显著正相关（P<0.001）。自觉伤口变化不同的患者SF-36和EQ-5D得分差异均具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。不同伤口类型、渗液量、疼痛分级的患者EQ-5D效用值和EQ-VAS得分差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论慢性伤口患者生活质量不佳，且生理健康受损较为严重。SF-36和EQ-5D用于慢性伤口患者生活质量评估的信效度良好。SF-36对生理、心理健康测量更全面，EQ-5D主要关注生理维度，测评省时，对伤口特征指标有更好的区分度。研究者可根据研究目的和具体需求进行选取。

关键词: 慢性伤口, 生活质量, 健康调查问卷, 欧洲五维度健康量表, 伤口护理

Abstract:

Objective To compare the reliability and validity of the Short Form-36 Health Survey（SF-36） and Euro Quality of Life Five-Dimensional Questionnaire（EQ-5D） in assessing the quality of life of patients with chronic wounds and the similarities and differences of their assessment on different dimensions. Methods Using convenience sampling，chronic wound patients treated in the wound center of a tertiary A hospital in Beijing from July 2019 to February 2022 were selected. The demographic data and disease related data were collected by a self-designed questionnaire. The patients’ quality of life was investigated by SF-36 and EQ-5D. Current situation of chronic wound patients’ quality of life were explored. By comparison of the 2 questionnaires，internal consistency，score correlation and score differences of patients grouped by the wound characteristics were compared and analyzed. Results A total of 144 patients were included in this study. The Physical Component Summary of SF-36 was 224.52±94.36，and the Mental Component Summary was 282.88±90.77. EQ-5D utility score was 0.73±0.23，and the score of EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale was 72.90±20.60. The Cronbach’s α of SF-36 subscales and EQ-5D were 0.694~0.957 and 0.757，respectively，and the scores were significantly correlated（P<0.001）. Significant differences in SF-36 and EQ-5D scores were found among patients with different self-reporting wound changes（P<0.05）. There were also statistically significant differences in EQ-5D scores among patients with different wound types，wound exudation volume and pain grades（P<0.05）. Conclusion The quality of life in patients with chronic wounds is low，and the physical health is more significantly impaired. Both SF-36 and EQ-5D have good reliability and validity in assessing the quality of life of patients with chronic wounds. SF-36 is more comprehensive in assessing both physical and mental dimensions，and EQ-5D focuses mainly on physical dimension. Besides，EQ-5D is shorter and thus time-saving，and could better reflect different wound characteristics. Researchers are recommended to make the selection according to their research purposes and specific needs.

Key words: Chronic Wound, Quality of Life, Short Form-36 Health Survey, Euro Quality of Life Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Wound Care

刘瑾, 白蕊, 张佩英, 傅晓瑾, 关辉, 温冰, 齐心, 丁炎明, 李会娟. 2种量表用于慢性伤口患者生活质量测评的对比研究[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(5): 558-564.

LIU Jin, BAI Rui, ZHANG Peiying, FU Xiaojin, GUAN Hui, WEN Bing, QI Xin, DING Yanming, LI Huijuan. Comparison of 2 questionnaires in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic wounds[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 2023, 58(5): 558-564.

图/表 2

参考文献 29

[1]	中华医学会创伤学分会组织修复专业委员会组. 慢性伤口诊疗指导意见(2011版)[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2011.
	Chinese Tissue Repair Society. Guidance on diagnosis and treatment of chronic wounds(2011 edition)[M]. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2011.
[2]	Martinengo L, Olsson M, Bajpai R, et al. Prevalence of chronic wounds in the general population:systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies[J]. Ann Epidemiol, 2019, 29(1):8-15. DOI URL
[3]	Olsson M, Jarbrink K, Divakar U, et al. The humanistic and eco-nomic burden of chronic wounds:a systematic review[J]. Wound Repair Regen, 2019, 27(1):114-125. DOI PMID
[4]	王丹, 李善玲, 余茴香. 慢性创面患者生活质量研究进展[J]. 护理学杂志, 2017, 32(10):103-106.
	Wang D, Li SL, Yu HX. A literature review of quality of life in patients with chronic wounds[J]. J Nurs Sci, 2017, 32(10):103-106.
[5]	彭颢, 陈露, 卓琳, 等. SF-36和EQ-5D量表在慢性肾脏病患者生命质量评估中的对比研究[J]. 东南大学学报(医学版), 2019, 38(6):1024-1028.
	Peng H, Chen L, Zhuo L, et al. Comparative study of SF-36 and EQ-5D in evaluating quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease[J]. J Southeast Univ(Med Sci Edi), 2019, 38(6):1024-1028.
[6]	刘蓉, 张剑锋, 严晓岚, 等. SF-36和EQ-5D-5L量表在晚期血吸虫病患者生命质量评价中的比较研究[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2021, 39(5):639-646.
	Liu R, Zhang JF, Yan XL, et al. Comparative study of SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L in evaluating quality of life for patients with advanced schistosomiasis[J]. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis, 2021, 39(5):639-646.
[7]	Vaidya A, Kleinegris MC, Severens JL, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36 in untreated patients with symptoms of intermittent claudication[J]. J Comp Eff Res, 2018, 7(6):535-548. DOI URL
[8]	倪平, 陈京立, 刘娜. 护理研究中量性研究的样本量估计[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2010, 45(4):378-380.
	Ni P, Chen JL, Liu N. Sample size estimation of quantitative research in nursing research[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2010, 45(4):378-380
[9]	Bujang MA, Ghani PA, Soelar SA, et al. Sample size guideline for exploratory factor analysis when using small sample:taking into consideration of different measurement scales[C]. 2012 International Conference on Statistics in Science,Business,and Engineering(ICSSBE),Langkawi,Kedah,Malaysia, 2012:1-5.
[10]	Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies:development and validation[J]. J Chronic Dis, 1987, 40(5):373-383. DOI PMID
[11]	World Union of Wound Healing Societies. Wound exudate: effective assessment and management[EB/OL]. (2019-03-07)[2022-11-10]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331482296_WUWHS_Consensus_Document_Wound_Exudate_effective_assess-ment_and_management.
[12]	Haughton W, Young T. Common problems in wound care: malodorous wounds[J]. Br J Nurs, 1995, 4(16):959-960,962-963. PMID
[13]	Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, et al. Studies with pain rating scales[J]. Ann Rheum Dis, 1978, 37(4):378-381. DOI PMID
[14]	The Euroqol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life[J]. Health Policy, 1990, 16(3):199-208. DOI URL
[15]	Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, et al. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states[J]. Value Health, 2014, 17(5):597-604. DOI PMID
[16]	Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE, et al. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population[J]. Med Care, 1988, 26(7):724-735. DOI PMID
[17]	Ware JE, Kosinski MA, Keller SD. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales:a user’s manual[EB/OL]. (1994-12-01)[2023-02-15]. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Ware/publication/292390260_SF-36_Physical_and_Mental_Health_Su-mmary_Scales_a_User’s_Manual/links/5af580264585157136caee31/SF-36-Physical-and-Mental-Health-Summary-Scales-a-Users-Manual.pdf.
[18]	王山, 樊文洁, 俞婉琦, 等. SF-36量表应用于城市化居民生命质量评价的信度和效度分析[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2016, 37(3):344-347.
	Wang S, Fan WJ, Yu WQ, et al. Analysis on reliability and validity of SF-36 scale in urban residents[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2016, 37(3):344-347.
[19]	李鲁, 王红妹, 沈毅. SF-36健康调查量表中文版的研制及其性能测试[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2002, 36(2):38-42.
	Li L, Wang HM, Shen Y. Development and psychometric tests of a Chinese version of the SF-36 Health Survey Scales[J]. Chin J Prev Med, 2002, 36(2):38-42.
[20]	Lentsck MH, Baratieri T, Trincaus MR, et al. Quality of life related to clinical aspects in people with chronic wound[J]. Rev Esc Enferm USP, 2018, 52:e03384.
[21]	Yan R, Yu F, Strandlund K, et al. Analyzing factors affecting quality of life in patients hospitalized with chronic wound[J]. Wound Repair Regen, 2021, 29(1):70-78. DOI PMID
[22]	周挺, 官海静, 刘国恩, 等. 基于EQ-5D量表的中国疾病人群生命质量系统评价[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(2):135-142.
	Zhou T, Guan HJ, Liu GE, et al. Health-related quality of life for disease population in China based on EQ-5D:a systematic review[J]. Chin J Evid-based Med, 2016, 16(2):135-142.
[23]	丁晗玥, 杨玉洁, 程萱, 等. EQ-5D-3L和FACT量表对北京癌症及癌前病变患者生活质量评估的信度和效度研究[J]. 肿瘤, 2017, 37(9):953-959.
	Ding HY, Yang YJ, Cheng X, et al. Reliability and validity of EQ-5D-3L and FACT in patients with cancer and precancerosis in Beijing[J]. Tumor, 2017, 37(9):953-959.
[24]	潘廷芳, 司超增, 何慧婧, 等. 我国6省市人群的健康相关生命质量研究[J]. 基础医学与临床, 2011, 31(6):636-641.
	Pan TF, Si CZ, He HJ, et al. Survey of health-related quality of life in population of 6 Chinese cities[J]. Basic & Clin Med, 2011, 31(6):636-641.
[25]	陈亚平, 曾艳妮. 慢性伤口患者抑郁、焦虑与社会支持及生活质量的相关性[J]. 中南大学学报(医学版), 2018, 43(9):1032-1036.
	Chen YP, Zeng YN. Correlation of depression and anxiety with social support and quality of life in patients with chronic wounds[J]. J Cent South Univ(Med Sci), 2018, 43(9):1032-1036.
[26]	孟朝琳, 李明子, 纪立农. 北京市1151例2型糖尿病患者生活质量及其影响因素分析[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2011, 46(5):505-507.
	Meng ZL, Li MZ, Ji LN. The quality of life and its influencing factors in patients with type 2 diabetes[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2011, 46(5):505-507.
[27]	Topp J, Blome C, Augustin M, et al. Determining the minimal important difference for the Wound-QoL Questionnaire[J]. Pa-tient Prefer Adherence, 2021, 15(1):1571-1578.
[28]	周挺, 官海静, 刘国恩, 等. 基于中国普通人群的EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L比较研究[J]. 中国卫生经济, 2016, 35(3):17-20.
	Zhou T, Guan HJ, Liu GE, et al. Comparison analysis on the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L for general population in China[J]. Chin Health Econ, 2016, 35(3):17-20.
[29]	梁敏洪, 付希婧, 高鹏, 等. 生命质量量表EQ-5D与SF-6D的比较[J]. 中国卫生经济, 2014, 33(3):9-11.
	Liang MH, Fu XJ, Gao P, et al. Comparative analysis on EuroQol-15 dimensions and short form-16D in Quality of Life Scale[J]. Chin Health Econ, 2014, 33(3):9-11.