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

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