Reliability and validity of the QASCI questionnaire to assess caregiving burden in COPD
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often leads to an increased dependence on the informal carer, which can result in higher levels of distress, anxiety or depression associated with the burden of caregiving and, consequently, reduced quality of life [1 Figueiredo D, Gabriel R, Jácome C, et al. Caring for people with early and advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: how do family carers cope? J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1–2):211–220.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]]. Several instruments have been used to assess carer burden in COPD; however, their measurement properties have been poorly assessed in this population [2 Cruz J, Marques A, Machado A, et al. Informal caregiving in COPD: a systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties. Respir Med. 2017;128:13–27.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]]. The Questionário de Avaliação de Sobrecarga do Cuidador Informal (QASCI) is a Portuguese questionnaire, originally created for carers of patients with stroke [3 Martins T, Garrett C, Pais-Ribeiro J. Estudo de Validação do Questionário de Avaliação da Sobrecarga para Cuidadores Informais. Psicologia Saúde Doenças. 2003;4(1):131–148. [Google Scholar]] and later validated in a sample with various chronic diseases, including respiratory diseases [4 Martins T, Garrett C, Pais-Ribeiro J. Questionário de Avaliação da Sobrecarga do Cuidador Informal (QASCI) – Reavaliação das Propriedades Psicométricas. Referência: Revista de Enfermagem. 2004;11(1):17–31 [Google Scholar]]. However, its reliability and validity in informal carers of patients with COPD have yet to be established. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the QASCI questionnaire for informal carers of patients with COPD.Materials and methods The Portuguese questionnaire QASCI evaluates the distress associated with burden of caregiving (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of burden). It has 32 items divided in 7 subscales (emotional burden; personal life implications; financial burden; reactions to demands; mechanism of efficacy and control; familiar support; and satisfaction with the role). Each item is scored with a 5-point Likert scale. Reliability included internal consistency assessment using the Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was assessed using the following questionnaires: Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) for concurrent validity; the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (anxiety and depression) and WHOQOL-Bref (quality of life) for convergent validity. Pearson’s (r) or Spearman’s (ρ) correlation coefficients were used according to the distribution of each variable. QASCI was expected to present a stronger (positive) correlation with ZBI than with HADS (r ≥ 0.5) and a negative correlation with WHOQOL-Bref (r≤–0.4) [3 Martins T, Garrett C, Pais-Ribeiro J. Estudo de Validação do Questionário de Avaliação da Sobrecarga para Cuidadores Informais. Psicologia Saúde Doenças. 2003;4(1):131–148. [Google Scholar],4 Martins T, Garrett C, Pais-Ribeiro J. Questionário de Avaliação da Sobrecarga do Cuidador Informal (QASCI) – Reavaliação das Propriedades Psicométricas. Referência: Revista de Enfermagem. 2004;11(1):17–31 [Google Scholar]].Results Forty-one carers (62.4 ± 10.1 years, 90.2% female; patients’ FEV1=43.7 ± 19.7%pred) completed the questionnaires. Cronbach’s alpha of the full QASCI scale was 0.767 and the subscales presented values between .633 and .929. QASCI and ZBI had a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.914; p=.01). QASCI had a strong positive correlation with HADS anxiety (r = 0.608; p=.01) and depression (ρ = 0.617; p=.01) subscales and moderate to strong negative correlations with all the WHOQOL-Bref subscales (–0.418 to 0.723, p=.01).Discussion and conclusions QASCI presented good internal consistency and construct validity results. QASCI seems to be a promising measure to evaluate distress levels associated with burden of caregiving in informal carers of patients with COPD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».