Evaluation of an Instrument Assessing Influence of Gout on Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of an instrument assessing the influence of gout (acute and chronic) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: Focus groups were used to examine the content of an existing Gout Assessment Questionnaire (GAQ1.0). GAQ2.0 was developed, consisting of a section describing the impact of gout on HRQOL [Gout Impact (GI)] and 4 sections describing subjects' gout overall and demographic data. The GAQ2.0 and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Version 2 (SF-36v2) were completed by gout patients in 3 US cities. GI scales were examined using clinical judgment, review of item statistics, Rasch analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Subjects (n = 308) were predominantly male (90.2%), Caucasian (75.9%), with a mean age 62.2 +/- 11.8 years. Half the subjects (49.7%) reported > or = 3 attacks in the past year. Two-week test-retest reliability for each scale was good (0.77 to 0.89) for all 5 GI scales. All scales achieved high sufficient (0.86 to 0.89) or excellent (0.93 to 0.97) ratings based on 10-item adjusted alpha coefficients. Correlations and tests among known groups indicated subjects with more severe gout had higher GI scores (i.e., greater gout impact). GI scores correlated more highly with patient-reported measures of gout severity than the SF-36v2 and several traditional measures of gout severity. CONCLUSION: The GAQ2.0 is an instrument for measuring the impact of gout on HRQOL. The GI section exhibited acceptable reliability and validity characteristics. Future studies should assess GI responsiveness, minimally important differences, and psychometric properties in other patient populations.
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 | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".