The Development of a Tracheostomy-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A long-term tracheostomy can be a life-altering event and can have significant effects on patients' quality of life (QOL). There is currently no instrument available to evaluate tracheostomy-specific QOL. To address this deficiency, the objective of this study was to create and preliminarily validate a pilot tracheostomy-specific QOL questionnaire to assess its feasibility. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed the pilot tracheostomy-specific QOL questionnaire (TQOL) in 3 phases: item generation, item review, and scale construction. The survey was administered at 0 and 2 weeks to a pilot group of tracheostomy patients with concurrent administration of a validated general QOL questionnaire at week 0. Convergence validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients completed the study (mean tracheostomy duration = 90 weeks). The convergence validity of the TQOL was moderately strong (r = 0.72), and the test-retest reliability was strong (r = 0.75). The TQOL also demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82). CONCLUSION: The TQOL has moderately strong internal consistency, convergence validity, and test-retest reliability. While additional refinement and validation may improve the questionnaire, these initial results are promising and support further development of this 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".