Validation of the Spanish version of the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire

Purpose: To validate the Spanish Low Vision Qualify of Life (SLVQOL) questionnaire, a quality of life instrument specifically designed for patients with visual impairment, and evaluate its psychometric properties.Methods: The study included 170 visually impaired patients and 195 healthy subjects. Participants were administered the SLVQOL, the NEI VFQ-25, and the EQ 5D-5L questionnaires. Reliability, test–retest reproducibility, feasibility, and construct validity of the SLVQOL were assessed. The Generalized Partial Credit Model was used to fit the data and the performance of each item was characterized using category response curves and item information.Results: The reliability of the SLVQOL was 0.981 (95% CI: 0.978–0.985). Test–retest reproducibility was good (ρ=0.864, P<.001). A cut-off point of 105 or 106 was optimal to detect visual impairment, with a sensitivity of 95.4% and a specificity of 91.8%. Construct validity was shown by the corresponding convergence or divergence correlations between the score of the SLVQOL and its dimensions and the overall and partial scores of the NEI VFQ-25 and the EQ 5D-5L. Item response theory analysis showed discrimination and information parameters ranging from 0.539 to 3.063 and from −1.894 to 1.074, respectively.Conclusion:The SLVQOL was able to quantitatively assess and identify differences in the quality of life among patients with visual impairment and normal subjects. The evaluated psychometric properties suggest that this tool has excellent validity, internal consistency, and reproducibility, but may benefit from a reduction of the number of items. (AU)

Validation of the Spanish version of the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To validate the Spanish Low Vision Qualify of Life (SLVQOL) questionnaire, a quality of life instrument specifically designed for patients with visual impairment, and evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The study included 170 visually impaired patients and 195 healthy subjects. Participants were administered the SLVQOL, the NEI VFQ-25, and the EQ 5D-5L questionnaires. Reliability, test-retest reproducibility, feasibility, and construct validity of the SLVQOL were assessed. The Generalized Partial Credit Model was used to fit the data and the performance of each item was characterized using category response curves and item information. RESULTS: The reliability of the SLVQOL was 0.981 (95% CI: 0.978-0.985). Test-retest reproducibility was good (ρ=0.864, P<.001). A cut-off point of 105 or 106 was optimal to detect visual impairment, with a sensitivity of 95.4% and a specificity of 91.8%. Construct validity was shown by the corresponding convergence or divergence correlations between the score of the SLVQOL and its dimensions and the overall and partial scores of the NEI VFQ-25 and the EQ 5D-5L. Item response theory analysis showed discrimination and information parameters ranging from 0.539 to 3.063 and from -1.894 to 1.074, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SLVQOL was able to quantitatively assess and identify differences in the quality of life among patients with visual impairment and normal subjects. The evaluated psychometric properties suggest that this tool has excellent validity, internal consistency, and reproducibility, but may benefit from a reduction of the number of items.

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases. RESULTS: 657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.