Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess the Quality of Life in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Mainland China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects the quality of patients' life in many ways. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a mainland Chinese version of IBD quality-of-life questionnaire for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: A draft questionnaire containing 30 items was generated from a descriptive qualitative study, literature review and consulting with IBD patients and experts. The validity, discriminant ability, reliability, and sensitivity to change were validated in 336 patients with IBD. RESULTS: A 22-item IBD quality-of-life questionnaire (IBDQOL-22) with 4 domains was developed. The 4 domain scores of the IBDQOL-22 correlated well with the related SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Health Survey) dimensional scores in UC (r = 0.42-0.75) and CD (r = 0.41-0.66). The total scores of the IBDQOL-22 correlated well with the physical component summary scores of the SF-36 in UC (r = 0.74) and CD (r = 0.74), the mental component summary scores of the SF-36 in UC (r = 0.77) and CD (r = 0.71), the colitis activity index in UC (r = -0.61) and the CD activity index (r = -0.53). It was able to discriminate between patients with active and inactive disease. Cronbach's alpha for the 4 domains of the IBDQOL-22 ranged from 0.77 to 0.90 in UC and from 0.76 to 0.89 in CD. Test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.88-0.95 in UC and 0.72-0.90 in CD). The 3 domains of the IBDQOL-22 (emotional function, symptoms and discomfort, bowel symptoms and its influences) were able to detect changes in patients whose clinical activity index changed more than one point. CONCLUSIONS: The IBDQOL-22 is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument for assessing disease-specific quality-of-life in patients with IBD in Mainland China.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".