Validation of the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy specific health related quality of life questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The only existing NVP-specific quality of life (QOL) questionnaire is the "Health-Related Quality of Life for Nausea and Vomiting during Pregnancy" (NVPQOL). However, the reliability and validity of the NVPQOL have never been established. In order to justify its usage, the internal consistency and criterion validity of the NVPQOL questionnaire must be ascertained. METHODS: A prospective observational study including pregnant women attending CHU Sainte-Justine or René-Laennec clinics for their prenatal care was conducted from 2004 to 2006. Women were eligible if they were > or = 18 years of age and < or = 16 weeks of gestation at the time of their first prenatal visit. During this initial visit, women who reported NVP were also asked to complete the NVPQOL and the SF-12. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated as the measures of the internal consistency of the NVPQOL. With respect to the criterion validity, linear regression models were built to measure the association between the NVPQOL and the SF-12 scores. RESULTS: Of the 367 women included in the study, 288 (78.5%) reported NVP in the first trimester of pregnancy. Among these women, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients were high for the complete NVPQOL questionnaire (alpha = 0.98), and for the four distinct domains [physical symptoms and aggravating factors (alpha = 0.90); fatigue (alpha = 0.94); emotions (alpha = 0.86); limitations (alpha = 0.97)]. NVP-specific QOL as measured by the NVPQOL was significantly associated with physical and mental QOL as measured by the SF-12. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the NVPQOL is a reliable and valid index to measure NVP-specific QOL in the first trimester of pregnancy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".