Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic constipation is characterized by difficult, infrequent, or seemingly incomplete bowel movements. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire was developed to address the need for a standardized, patient-reported outcomes measure to evaluate constipation over time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Items for the PAC-QOL were generated from the literature, clinical experts, and patients. Following principal components and multi-trait analyses, 28 items were retained forming four subscales (worries and concerns, physical discomfort, psychosocial discomfort, and satisfaction) and an overall scale. Validation studies were conducted in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia, to evaluate the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha), reproducibility (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs)), validity (analysis of variance models), and responsiveness (effect size) of the PAC-QOL scales. RESULTS: The PAC-QOL scales were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha >0.80) and reproducible (ICCs >0.70, except for the satisfaction subscale ICC=0.66). PAC-QOL scale scores were significantly associated with abdominal pain (p<0.001) and constipation severity (p<0.05). Effect sizes in patients reporting improvements in constipation over a 6-week period were moderate to large, with subscale effect sizes ranging from 0.76 to 3.41 and the overall scale effect size=1.77. Similar findings were observed in validation studies conducted in Europe, Canada, and Australia. CONCLUSIONS: The PAC-QOL is a brief but comprehensive assessment of the burden of constipation on patients' everyday functioning and well-being. Multinational studies demonstrate that the PAC-QOL is internally consistent, reproducible, valid, and responsive to improvements over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".