Translation of the MHISS Questionnaire was performed according to the Beaton guidelines [14]. Two translations from English to classic Arabic were done by two independent native Arabic speakers who are fluent in English as well; both had knowledge about the purpose of the study for better adaptation and equivalence between the original version and translated version of the questionnaire with a pooling in one translation form, which is then retranslated back to English version by an independent bilingual translator who was completely blind to the original English version of the questionnaire. Comparison was done to the original MHISS to check for similar consistency and to ensure that the Arabic version is equivalent to the original English version, and to test for comprehensibility, the Arabic questionnaire was tested on 20 healthy individuals (not health caregivers), ten patients with SSc disease, and another 5 patients with any other rheumatic illness than SSc. All cases reported that they understood the questions easily, then a final formulation of the Arabic version of the questionnaire was created to be used in the study.
The patients were administered the Arabic version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) which has been validated previously [15]; it consists of 20 categories to be self-answered by the patients. They are organised in 8 items: dressing and grooming, arising, eating, walking, personal hygiene, reaching, gripping, and other activities. Each category is rated from 0 (no difficulty) to 3 (unable to do). A score for each category is the highest score for any question in the category. A disability index is calculated by adding the scores from each category and dividing by the number of categories answered and rated from 0 (less disabled) to 3 (more disabled) [16]. As regards the treatment, it was tailored for each patient; in most cases, it was a combination of steroids, azathioprine, methotrexate, ACE inhibitors, nifedipine, and sildenafil. It was difficult to categorize the patients into groups according to the treatment to study the effect of these combination on the score of the questionnaire. In addition, all previous studies for validation of this questionnaire did not include the medications in their testing parameter for reliability or external validity.
Sf36 Questionnaire Arabic Version Pdf Download
Of the 260 previously reported patients [6], 189 were interviewed and completed the official validated Arabic version of the SF-36/RAND-36 questionnaire [7] Postoperative questionnaires were collected from those who completed at least 1 year of follow-up.
During the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Female Sexual Dysfunction Roundtable in 2008, suitable modifications were made, giving rise to the PISQ IUGA-revised (PISQ-IR) questionnaire. The new version of the questionnaire can also be administered to sexually inactive women, allowing analysis of the causes of sexual abstinence, including UI, POP, fecal incontinence (FI), other health problems, and lack of partner or interest in sexual activity [3].
The success of a therapeutic process is no longer determined only on the basis of its anatomical effect, but also in terms of its effects on the functional roles of the vagina and the genital organs. Questionnaires are the main tools for QoL evaluation, including sexual function, as they allow objective analysis and comparison of the results obtained [4,5,6]. In order for a new language version of any questionnaire to be used, both compliance with the original and the capacity to analyze a given phenomenon in another population need to be confirmed. Accurate translation does not always allow the questionnaire to be used or a specific meaning to be conveyed. Thus, a process of translation and validation is required to adjust the translation to the linguistic and cultural differences and nuances, while remaining faithful to the original.
In our center, we validated the original version of PISQ [7], and that experience proved to be invaluable for future reference. Bearing in mind that sexual function is a vital aspect of the therapeutic effect in PFD patients, we chose to translate and validate the latest questionnaire for women with PFD, i.e. PISQ-IR.
According to IUGA, the PISQ-IR is currently being validated in numerous countries. Thus, it seems reasonable to hope that the questionnaire will soon become a widely popular tool, allowing comparison of study results in different populations. However, at present, only a few language versions other than English are available (Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, German, Hungarian, Spanish and Czech) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22].
Criterion-related validity was based on the analysis of correlations between PISQ-IR scores and clinical measures. In our study, in both groups (SA and NSA) neither the -CS scores nor the -CI scores (the two condition-specific subscales) were correlated with clinical measures. Similar results have been reported for the Spanish and Arabic versions of the questionnaire [20, 21]. In the original version, the questionnaire scores for NSA women did not correlate with clinical measures, whereas a weak correlation was found for SA women between POP-Q stage and SA-CS and SA-CI scores [3]. Various authors have reported no association between sexual function and data from the physical examination, i.e. POP stage, but found a link between the perception of body image and distress level caused by a given condition [25, 26].
Concerning the self-reported condition-specific measures (PFDI-20, ISI, EPIQ question #35) for criterion validity in NSA women, there were moderately significant correlations between PFDI-20 scores and NSA-CS and NSA-CI scores and between EPIC question #35 score with NSA-CI score. There were no correlations between ISI and condition-specific subscale scores in NSA women, while in SA women there were significant negative correlations between condition-specific subscale scores (i.e. SA-CS, SA-CI) and PFDI-20 scores and ISI. The observed correlations were weak or moderate, which is consistent with the results found for the original version of the questionnaire and other language versions of PISQ-IR, for which the results did not always reach statistical significance [16, 18,19,20]. The Arabic version, with a strong correlation between ISI and NSA-CI and SA-CS scores, is the only exception so far, probably due to a high proportion of women with UI in the investigated population [21].
The general questionnaire which evaluates sexual function, i.e. FSFI, was used for criterion validity among SA women. All PISQ-IR SA subscale scores, except the SA-CS score, were significantly correlated with the FSFI total score. Analysis of correlations between the same domains of the two questionnaires as presented by Rogers et al. [3], and comparison of similar aspects of sexual life, revealed that the Polish version of PISQ-IR generated statistically significant results similar to those of the original version. SA-AO scores were correlated with FSFI Desire, Arousal, Lubrication, Orgasm and Pain domain scores. SA-CS scores were correlated with FSFI Satisfaction and Pain domain scores. SA-GQ scores were correlated with FSFI Desire, Arousal and Satisfaction scores. SA-CI scores were correlated with FSFI Arousal and Pain scores. SA-D scores were correlated with the FSFI Desire domain scores. However, unlike the original version, SA-PR subscale scores were not correlated with the FSFI Satisfaction domain scores in the Polish version.
Quality of life was assessed by the 36-item short-form Health Survey (SF-36) in Hebrew [14, 15] and Arabic [16], as well as by the Hebrew version of the fatigue severity scale (FSS) [17]. The Arabic version of the FSS was translated back and forth to ensure accuracy. The 36 items in the SF-36 questionnaire were combined into 8 categories during analysis (elaborated in Table 2), with a high score indicated a more favorable health state. FSS was scored such that a high score indicated a less favorable health state.
The initial version of the questionnaire was based on input from patients receiving treatment at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem. It was designed to be comparable with the SF-36 questionnaire [22] for aspects relating to general HRQoL and additionally include original questions covering GD-specific aspects and orphan drug-specific aspects. The first draft of the questionnaire included 11 questions revised from the SF-36 questionnaire, nine originally developed GD-specific questions, three originally developed orphan drug-specific questions, and seven originally developed activities of daily living, symptoms, and psychosocial items. The questionnaire was drafted in English and Hebrew and additionally translated into Arabic from the English version by a native speaker (Rinad Nabulsi, MD).
A panel of experts provided input into a third version of the questionnaire, with no changes requested (Fig. 1). The panel comprised five clinicians with expertise in GD: Dr. Neal Weinreb, Dr. Özlem Göker-Alpan, Dr. Nadia Belmatoug, Professor Ida Vanessa D. Schwartz, and Dr. Patrick Deegan; two Canadian experts in PROMs: Professor Gordon Guyatt and Dr. Patricia Miller, both at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and two representatives of the European Gaucher Patients Alliance: Jeremy Manuel, OBE, and Tanya Collin-Histed. At this point, Shire (now Takeda) was given the rights to the PROM for validation and to make it freely available upon completion of that process.
Owing to an expectation that some items, although considered clinically relevant by GD experts, would not be expected to change over the course of a clinical trial, coupled with advice from the UK National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee that some items may be distressing for patients, the decision was made that the full 24-item version of the questionnaire would be pursued for routine monitoring in clinical practice (rmGD1-PROM; Additional file 1), and a shorter, 17-item version would undergo psychometric validation for use in clinical trials (ctGD1-PROM). Psychometric analyses were undertaken to establish the measurement properties of the 17-item ctGD1-PROM, which includes eight questions from part 1 and all nine questions from part 2 of the full-length, 24-item rmGD1-PROM (Fig. 1, Table 2). 2ff7e9595c
Opmerkingen