2种量表用于慢性伤口患者生活质量测评的对比研究

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<...

Comparison of 2 questionnaires in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic wounds

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.