We have located links that may give you full text access.
Test-retest properties of the Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens and Experiences (PROBE) questionnaire and its constituent domains.
BACKGROUND: The Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens and Experiences (PROBE) study aims to develop and validate questionnaire for assessing health status in patients with haemophilia and participants without bleeding disorders.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the test-retest properties of the PROBE questionnaire.
METHODS: The PROBE questionnaire covers four domains and is comprised of 29 questions. People with haemophilia (PWH) and participants without bleeding disorder were invited to participate in this study. All participants were asked to complete the PROBE questionnaire three times (paper-based survey on two consecutive days: T1 and T2 and then a web-based version: T3). Test-retest properties and percentage agreement were analysed.
RESULTS: A total of 63 participants were enrolled in this study with a median age of 50 (range: 17-76) years. Of these, 30 (47.6%) were PWH. On the questions common to PWH and participants without bleeding disorder, Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.69 to 1.00, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement (T1 vs T2). For haemophilia-related questions (T1 vs T2), Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.5 to 1.0. Of these, 5 of 11 items were in perfect agreement (Kappa = 1.0). The web-based questionnaire (T3) showed substantial to almost perfect agreement with the paper version (T1 test-retest properties were comparable between PWH and individuals without a bleeding disorder).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that PROBE is a reliable tool to assess patient-reported outcomes for PWH and benchmark data in participants without bleeding disorder. The web-based questionnaire and the standard paper-based version can be used interchangeably.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the test-retest properties of the PROBE questionnaire.
METHODS: The PROBE questionnaire covers four domains and is comprised of 29 questions. People with haemophilia (PWH) and participants without bleeding disorder were invited to participate in this study. All participants were asked to complete the PROBE questionnaire three times (paper-based survey on two consecutive days: T1 and T2 and then a web-based version: T3). Test-retest properties and percentage agreement were analysed.
RESULTS: A total of 63 participants were enrolled in this study with a median age of 50 (range: 17-76) years. Of these, 30 (47.6%) were PWH. On the questions common to PWH and participants without bleeding disorder, Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.69 to 1.00, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement (T1 vs T2). For haemophilia-related questions (T1 vs T2), Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.5 to 1.0. Of these, 5 of 11 items were in perfect agreement (Kappa = 1.0). The web-based questionnaire (T3) showed substantial to almost perfect agreement with the paper version (T1 test-retest properties were comparable between PWH and individuals without a bleeding disorder).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that PROBE is a reliable tool to assess patient-reported outcomes for PWH and benchmark data in participants without bleeding disorder. The web-based questionnaire and the standard paper-based version can be used interchangeably.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app