Measurement properties of the Portuguese version of Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire - modified version (PFSDQ-M) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in interstitial lung disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction and objectives: There are several instruments to assess functional status, however, their measurement properties for specific populations are often unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire - modified version (PFSDQ-M) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for Portuguese adults with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Methods: An observational study was conducted with people with ILD. Sociodemographic and clinical data [lung function and 6-minute walk test (6MWT)] were retrieved from participants’ medical notes. At baseline, the PFSDQ-M, the COPM, the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (SGRQ-I) and the London Chest Activities of Daily Living (LCADL) were first collected face-to-face, in an interview form. PFSDQ-M and COPM were repeated 48h-72h after by two raters, via phone call. Reliability measures included Cronbach’s to test internal consistency, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for test-retest/intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, Bland & Altman 95% limits of agreement (95%LoA), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) for test-retest measurement error. For COPM, two raters classified all activities mentioned by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) second level classification. Interrater agreement was assessed through Cohen’s kappa. Validity was assessed with the Spearman correlation coefficient (rho): criterion validity between LCADL and PFSDQ-M and COPM, and construct/ divergent validity between lung function, 6MWT, SGRQI and PFSDQ-M and COPM. Floor and ceiling effects were explored and considered existing If more than 15% of participants were at the maximum or minimum score. Results: 167 people with ILD (64 ± 14 years old; 49% male; FVCpp 87 ± 20; DLCOpp 62 ± 21) participated. PFSDQ-M showed excellent internal consistency (= 0.92 a = 0.97), good test-retest and interrater reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.76-0.87, 95%CI [0.65,0.91] and ICC2,1 = 0.84-0.87, 95%CI [0.75,0.92], respectively), and good agreement between moments (mean = 7.47, LC95% [-46.06, 61.00]) and raters (mean = -0.24; LC95% [-52.63; 52.14]), without evidence of systematic bias. SEM and MDC95 ranged from 0.56-2.38 e 1.56-6.60, respectively. Correlations between PFSDQ-M and: SGRQ-I and LCADL were significant, positive, and moderate to high (= 0.59 to 0.82, p < 0.01; lung function and 6MWT were significant, negative, and small to moderate (= -0.23 a -0.44; p < 0.01). COPM showed good to excellent test-retest/intra-rater and inter-rater (ICC2,1 = 0.78- 0.86, 95%CI [0.66,0.91] and ICC2,1 = 0.73-0.92, 95%CI [0.58,0.95], respectively) reliability, and good agreement between moments (mean = -0.07 e - 0.33; LC95% [-2.12; 1.98] and [-3.32; 2.66]) and raters (mean = -0.04 e -0.29; LC95% [-1.42; 1.35] and [-3.27; 2.69]) for total scores, without evidence of systematic bias. SEM and MDC95 ranged from 0.25-0.32 and 0.70-0.88, respectively. Interrater agreement for the COPM’s classification using ICF two-level was almost perfect (k = 0.86). Correlations between COPM and: SGRQ-I and LCADL were significant, negative, and moderate (= -0.47 to -0.65, p < 0.01); lung function and 6MWT were non- significant (p < 0.05), except for performance and 6MWT distance, FEV1 e FVC (= 0.26 to 0.36, p < 0.01) and for satisfaction and FEV1 and FVC (= 0.22 and 0.24, p < 0.05). Floor effects were found in PFSDQ-M. Conclusions: PFSDQ-M and COPM have good reliability and validity indicators to assess HRQoL in Portuguese adults with ILD.
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 | 0,012 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».