ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVES</b>to verify the feasibility and reliability of the electronic version of Chinese SF-36 based on the Quality-of-Life-Recorder.</p><p><b>DESIGN</b>A crossover randomized controlled trial, comparing a paper-based and an electronic version of the Chinese SF-36, was conducted. According to generated random numbers, interviewees were asked to fill out either the electronic version or the paper version first. The second version was filled in after a pause of at least 10 min.</p><p><b>SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS</b>One group of 100 medical students at the School of Medicine of Zhejiang University and the other group of 50 outpatients at a clinic for general practice in Hangzhou City (China) were eventually recruited in this study.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The acceptance of the electronic version was good (60% of medical students and 84% of outpatients preferred the electronic version). At the level of eight-scale scores, the mean-difference for each scale (except for general health) between the two versions was less than 5%. At the level of 36 questions, the percentage of "exact agreement" ranged within 64%-99%; the percentage of "global agreement" ranged within 72%-99%; 77% of the kappa coefficients demonstrated "good/excellent agreement" and 23% of the kappa coefficients demonstrated "medium agreement".</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>This study, for the first time, can provide empirical basis for the confirmation of the feasibility and reliability of the electronic version of the Chinese SF-36 and may provide an impulse towards widespread deployment of the Quality-of-Life-Recorder in Chinese populations.</p>
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , China , Cross-Over Studies , Electronics , Health Surveys , Quality of Life , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time FactorsABSTRACT
In more recent times, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measurements have formed an important part of assessing the quality of routine care in general practice. For a measure to have clinical usefulness it must not only be valid, appropriate, reliable, responsive, and capable of being interpreted, but it must also be simple, fast to complete, easy to score, and provide useful clinical data. The Two-step method of choosing appropriate measures is introduced. Then through comparison of generic instruments with disease-specific instruments, we can conclude that sometimes a combination of generic and disease-specific HRQOL measures may be more appropriate for monitoring changes in a patient's health status due to an intervention.