We have located links that may give you full text access.
Health-related quality of life among celiacs in Portugal: a comparison between general and specific questionnaires.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument version 2 (SF-36-v2) (generic) and Celiac Disease Questionnaire (CDQ) (specific) questionnaires used to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) in celiac Portuguese adult individuals.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used non-probabilistic sampling based on Portuguese celiac patients who accessed the online survey in 2022. The online data collection used a self-reported instrument composed of three parts: (i) socioeconomic, health, and gluten-free diet (GFD) adherence questions; (ii) SF-36 v2 - Portuguese version (generic questionnaire) and (iii) Celiac Disease Questionnaire (CDQ) (specific questionnaire).
RESULTS: A total of 234 individuals who accessed the survey completed the questionnaire. Seven of the eight SF-36 domains positively correlated to the specific questionnaire CDQ. The "General Health" domain (domain 4) showed a negative correlation with the CDQ. Differences in content between the two instruments might be able to explain this finding since the CDQ explores issues regarding the specificities of celiac disease (CD) and the lifelong GFD burden. About half of the sample from this study displayed poor diet adherence, it is possible that the SF-36 could not reflect the impact of CD treatment - the complete elimination of gluten from the diet - on patients' health. Therefore, this issue should be carefully evaluated in future research.
CONCLUSION: Specific validated questionnaires for CD individuals, such as the CDQ, contemplate social, economic, and clinical variables that permeate the patient's life context. Therefore, these instruments may be more suitable for evaluating QoL in this public. However, using a general questionnaire such as the SF-36 would be indicated for comparing QOL between celiac patients and the general population or even between CD and other disease individuals. In this case, we recommend assessing GFD compliance for control parallelly.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used non-probabilistic sampling based on Portuguese celiac patients who accessed the online survey in 2022. The online data collection used a self-reported instrument composed of three parts: (i) socioeconomic, health, and gluten-free diet (GFD) adherence questions; (ii) SF-36 v2 - Portuguese version (generic questionnaire) and (iii) Celiac Disease Questionnaire (CDQ) (specific questionnaire).
RESULTS: A total of 234 individuals who accessed the survey completed the questionnaire. Seven of the eight SF-36 domains positively correlated to the specific questionnaire CDQ. The "General Health" domain (domain 4) showed a negative correlation with the CDQ. Differences in content between the two instruments might be able to explain this finding since the CDQ explores issues regarding the specificities of celiac disease (CD) and the lifelong GFD burden. About half of the sample from this study displayed poor diet adherence, it is possible that the SF-36 could not reflect the impact of CD treatment - the complete elimination of gluten from the diet - on patients' health. Therefore, this issue should be carefully evaluated in future research.
CONCLUSION: Specific validated questionnaires for CD individuals, such as the CDQ, contemplate social, economic, and clinical variables that permeate the patient's life context. Therefore, these instruments may be more suitable for evaluating QoL in this public. However, using a general questionnaire such as the SF-36 would be indicated for comparing QOL between celiac patients and the general population or even between CD and other disease individuals. In this case, we recommend assessing GFD compliance for control parallelly.
Full text links
Related Resources
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