WHODAS 2.0 Ölçeği ile Toplanan Verilerde Kayıp Verilerin Ele Alınma Yaklaşımlarının İncelemesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada literatürde Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Yeti Yitimi Değerlendirme Çizelgesi 2.0 ölçeği (WHODAS 2.0) uygulanan makalelerde kayıp veri oranlarının belirtilip belirtilmediği, kayıp veri analizinin uygulanma durumu ve kayıp veri analizi uygulandı ise ne şekilde uygulandığını değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır. Literatürde 4 Kasım 1999’dan 6 Nisan 2018’e kadar WHODAS 2.0 uygulanan makaleler taranarak kayıp verilerin analizi için ele alınan yaklaşımlar üzerine sistematik derleme yapılmıştır. Yayınlarda kayıp veri oranlarının genel, alan ve madde bazında verilme durumu değerlendirmiştir. WHODAS 2.0 uygulama kılavuzunda önerilen kayıp verilerin ele alınma stratejilerinin ve diğer yaklaşımların nasıl uygulandığı incelenmiştir. Toplam 91 makale özeti gözden geçirilmiş ve 82 makale tam metin incelemesi için seçilmiştir. Son değerlendirmede n=32 makale çalışmaya dahil olmuştur. Taranan yayınlarda genel kayıp ve alan bazında kayıp veri oranı hesaplama durumu %30’un altında kalmıştır. En yüksek kayıp oranına sahip olan bazı maddeler için kayıp oranı veren makale oranı %9,38’dir. Yayınların sadece %50’sinde uygulama kılavuzunda önerilen yaklaşımlar (tekli değer atama ve çoklu değer atama) yazarlar tarafından farklı şekillerde uygulanmıştır. Taranan makaleler arasında kayıp veri analizi için yapılan uygulamalar değerlendirildiğinde tutarlı bir yöntemden bahsetmek güçtür. WHODAS 2.0 uygulama kılavuzunda önerilen kayıp veri yaklaşımlarının araştırmacılar tarafından farklı yorum ve uygulamalara açık olduğu gözlenmiştir. Kritik kayıp veri oranı hakkında ortak bir fikir olmadığı gözlenmiştir. Kılavuzda yer verilen iş/okul yaşamı faaliyetleri (D5.8-D5.11) ile ilgili maddelerin yanında D4.5 cinsel faaliyetler maddesinde de sistematik olarak kayıp veri gözlenmiş, bu maddeler için genellikle çift bazında silme yaklaşımına veya çalışma dışında tutma yöntemine gidilmiştir böylelikle de ölçeğin Rasch modele uyumu ve güvenirliğinin arttığı gözlenmiştir. Bu çalışmanın WHODAS 2.0 özelinde kayıp veriler üzerinde yapılmış ilk çalışma olmasının yanı sıra WHODAS 2.0 uygulayacak araştırmacılara olası kayıp veri durumlarını yansıtması bakımından yol gösterici olacağı ve de ileri zamanlarda kayıp veriler üzerinde metodolojik olarak yapılacak karşılaştırmalı çalışmalara öncül bir çalışma olarak faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• WHODAS 2.0
• Kayıp Veri
• Sistematik Derleme

WHODAS 2.0 Ölçeği ile Toplanan Verilerde Kayıp Verilerin Ele Alınma Yaklaşımlarının İncelemesi

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether missing data rates are indicated in articles which applied World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scale (WHODAS 2.0); and to determine if missing data analysis were done and how it was conducted. We conducted a systematic literature review on articles applying WHODAS 2.0 about strategies used for missing data analysis from November 4, 1999, to April 6, 2018. We evaluated whether the rates of missingness is given by domain and item, how the handling missing data strategies proposed in manual for WHODAS 2.0 taken into consideration and other approaches for missing data analysis. A total of 91 abstracts were reviewed and 82 articles chosen for full text review. Thirty-two articles were included in the final evaluation. Below 30% of articles gave the rate of overall missingness and rates by domain. Only 9.38% of articles gave missing rate for some items that have the highest missing rate. In 50% of articles, the approaches proposed in the WHODAS 2.0 manual (single imputation and multiple imputation) were performed in different ways. When analyzing the approaches for missing data analysis among reviewed articles, it is difficult to get a consistent method. Authors implemented missing data approaches proposed in the WHODAS 2.0 application manual in different ways. There is no common sense for the critical rates of missingness. In addition to not applicable items related to work/school life activities (D5.8-D5.11) which is mentioned in the manual, a systematic missingness was observed in D4.5 “sexual activities” item. This study is the first study on missing data in WHODAS 2.0 literature and it can be used as guideline for reflecting possible missing data to researchers who will apply WHODAS 2.0 and also will be useful as a preliminary study on methodological studies on missing data.

Keywords

• WHODAS 2.0
• Missing Data
• Systematic Review

References

1. 1. Ustun, TB, Kostanjesek, N, Chatterji, S, Rehm, J & World Health Organization (2010). Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) / edited by T.B. Üstün, N. Kostanjsek, S. Chatterji, J.Rehm. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43974
2. 2. Holvast F, Burger H, de Waal MM, et al. Loneliness is associated with poor prognosis in late-life depression: Longitudinal analysis of the Netherlands study of depression in older persons. J Affect Disord. 2015;185:1-7.
3. 3. Sinnema H, Majo MC, Volker D, et al. Effectiveness of a tailored implementation programme to improve recognition, diagnosis and treatment of anxiety and depression in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2015;10:33.
4. 4. Thomas C, Narahari SR, Bose KS, et al. Comparison of three quality of life instruments in lymphatic filariasis: DLQI, WHODAS 2.0, and LFSQQ. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e2716.
5. 5. Mcardle R, Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, et al. The WHO-DAS II: measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults. Trends Amplif. 2005;9:127-143.
6. 6. Moen, VP, Drageset J, Eide GE, et al. Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in Norway. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:505-514.
7. 7. Cheung MK, Hung AT, Poon PK, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Assessment Schedule II Chinese Traditional Version (WHODAS II CT) in persons with disabilities and chronic illnesses for Chinese population. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:1902-1907.
8. 8. Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, et al. Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:51.

9. 9. Chiu T, Yen C, Chou C, et al. Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 36--item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: validity and reliability analyses. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35:2812-2820.
10. 10. Pösl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1521-1531.
11. 11. Wolf A, Tate R, Lannin N, et al. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale, WHODAS II: reliability and validity in the measurement of activity and participation in a spinal cord injury population. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:747-755.
12. 12. Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Sozański B, et al. Validation of the Polish version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in an elderly population (60-70 years old). Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24:386-394.
13. 13. de Pedro-Cuesta J, Alberquilla Á, Virués-Ortega J, et al. ICF disability measured by WHO-DAS II in three community diagnostic groups in Madrid, Spain. Gac Sanit. 2011;25 Suppl 2:21-28.
14. 14. Almazán-Isla J, Comín-Comín M, Damián J, et al. Analysis of disability using WHODAS 2.0 among the middle-aged and elderly in Cinco Villas, Spain. Disabil Health J. 2014;7:78-87.
15. 15. Wallis K, Sutton D, Bassett S. Sensory Modulation for People with Anxiety in a Community Mental Health Setting. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 34, 122-137.
16. 16. Koorevaar A, Hegeman J, Lamers F, et al. Big Five personality characteristics are associated with depression subtypes and symptom dimensions of depression in older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32:e132-e140.
17. 17. Raggi A, Leonardi M, Carella, F, et al. Impact of nonmotor symptoms on disability in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34:316-320.
18. 18. Wersebe H, Lieb R, Meyer AH, et al. Changes of valued behaviors and functioning during an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Intervention. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6;63-70.
19. 19. Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino Ó, et al. Disability in bipolar I disorder: the 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. J Affect Disord. 2015;174:353-360.
20. 20. Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino O, et al. Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2012;138:240-247.
21. 21. Preminger JE, Ziegler CH. Can auditory and visual speech perception be trained within a group setting? Am J Audiol. 2008;17:80-97.
22. 22. Koumpouros Y, Papageorgiou E, Sakellari E, et al. Adaptation and psychometric properties evaluation of the Greek version of WHODAS 2.0. pilot application in Greek elderly population. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology,18,63-74.
23. 23. Sohn JH, Ahn SH, Seong SJ, et al. Prevalence, work-loss days and quality of life of community dwelling subjects with depressive symptoms. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28:280-286.
24. 24. Raggi A, Leonardi M, Covelli V, et al. Concordance between severity of disease, prevalence of nonmotor symptoms, patient-reported quality of life and disability and use of medication in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci. 2012;33:847-853.
25. 25. Slim F, van Schie CH, Keukenkamp R, et al. Effects of impairments on activities and participation in people affected by leprosy in The Netherlands. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:536-543.
26. 26. Silveira C, Souza RT, Costa ML, et al. Validation of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) 12-item tool against the 36-item version for measuring functioning and disability associated with pregnancy and history of severe maternal morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141.
27. 27. Fleming AR, Fairweather JS, Leahy MJ. Quality of Life As a Potential Rehabilitation Service Outcome. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,57,9-22.
28. 28. Santana GL, Coelho BM, Wang Y, et al. The epidemiology of personality disorders in the Sao Paulo Megacity general population. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0195581.
29. 29. Gore WL, Widiger TA. Negative emotionality across diagnostic models: RDoC, DSM-5 Section III, and FFM. Personal Disord. 2018;9:155-164.
30. 30. Schumm JA, Gore WL, Chard KM, et al. Examination of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment System as a Measure of Disability Severity Among Veterans Receiving Cognitive Processing Therapy. J Trauma Stress. 2017;30:704-709.
31. 31. Fewell LK, Levinson CA, Stark L. Depression, worry, and psychosocial functioning predict eating disorder treatment outcomes in a residential and partial hospitalization setting. Eat Weight Disord. 2017;22:291-301.
32. 32. Alegría M, Ludman E, Kafali EN, et al. Effectiveness of the Engagement and Counseling for Latinos (ECLA) intervention in low-income Latinos. Med Care. 2014;52:989-997.
33. 33. Hu L, Zang Y, Li N. The applicability of WHODAS 2.0 in adolescents in China. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21:2438-451.
34. 34. Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, et al. World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:553-564.
35. 35. Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, et al. WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disability and Rehabilitation, Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:855-864.
36. 36. Zhao HP, Liu Y, Li H, et al. Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Qual Life Res. 2013 May;22:897-906.
37. 37. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
38. 38. Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M. Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of Statistical Software. 45,1-47.
39. 39. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC;2017.
40. 40. Royston P, White I. Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. Journal of Statistical Software;45.
41. 41. Elhan AH., Oztuna D, Kutlay S, et al. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:166.
42. 42. Kutlay S, Küçükdeveci AA, Elhan AH, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31:339-346.
43. 43. Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Yıldızlar D, et al. The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:214-220.