Measuring quality of life: The development and initial validation of the Patient-Reported Erectile Function Assessment instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a complex condition, which is variously influenced by physical, emotional, societal, and relationship factors. ED has serious implications for the quality of life (QoL) enjoyed by an affected male and his partner. It is very important, therefore, to understand the impact of ED on the QoL of those affected by it. Our objective was to determine if the eight-question Patient Reported Erectile Function Assessment (PREFA) could act as an independent, comprehensive disease-specific instrument in the assessment of QoL as it is impacted by ED. METHODS: During the development and validation of the Erectile Function-Visual Analog Scale (EF-VAS) (14), a new ED-specific preference-based instrument, a series of questions were included at the beginning of the assessment that would act as a way to encourage respondents to focus on their own experience with ED. Upon analysis of the EF-VAS data, it became apparent that the eight-question "warm up" section might act as a stand-alone assessment. Accordingly, the eight questions were named PREFA, and a validation analysis was undertaken to determine their consistency, feasibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness. RESULTS: The PREFA questionnaire was found to be feasible and simple to complete, reliable, and valid, with excellent responsiveness. Overall, the PREFA has demonstrated that it can perform as a stand alone, validated assessment of the impact of ED on QoL, assessing areas of QoL not previously captured in existing instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The PREFA is suitable for use in clinical and research settings as a disease-specific QoL assessment tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".