Kronik Yaralarda Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeğinin Türk Popülasyonunda Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği

Yıl 2025,

Yasemin Uslu , Ükke Karabacak , Christine Blome , Emre Özker

https://doi.org/10.17049/jnursology.1607418

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı Wound-QoL-14 ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini değerlendirmektir.

Yöntemler: Metodolojik olarak tasarlanan araştırmaya, Mart 2022 ve Nisan 2023 tarihleri arasında İstanbul'da bir üniversite hastanesinde tedavi gören kronik yarası olan 141 hasta (yaş ortalaması: 63,52±13,94 yıl; %57’si erkek) dahil edilmiştir. Kapsam geçerliği hem uzman değerlendirmeleri hem de hasta geri bildirimleri alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. İç tutarlılık Cronbach alfa ile incelenmiş, madde-toplam korelasyonları ise Pearson korelasyon katsayısı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Test-tekrar test güvenirliği 35 hastada bir hafta sonra değerlendirilmiştir. Yakınsak geçerlik SF-12 Sağlık Anketi kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Davis yöntemi sonucunda, madde düzeyinde kapsam geçerlik indeksleri 0,90 ile 1,00 arasında değişmiştir. Ölçek maddelerinin Cronbach alfa katsayıları 0,76 ile 0,97 arasında, madde-toplam korelasyonları ise 0,42 ile 0,78 arasında bulunmuştur. Test-tekrar test sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0.95 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Wound-QoL-14 toplam puanları ile SF-12 alt boyutları ile anlamlı negatif korelasyon saptanmıştır (r = -0,284 ila -0,718). DFA, faktör yükleri 0,67 ila 0,93 arasında değişen dört faktörlü yapıyı (beden, psikoloji, günlük yaşam ve bağımsız 5. madde) doğrulamıştır.

Sonuç: Wound-QoL-14 ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonu, kronik yarası olan hastalarda yara ilişkili yaşam kalitesini değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araçtır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

yara bakımı , kronik yara , yaşam kalitesi , anketler , geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik

Validity and Reliability of the Wound‐QoL-14 questionnaire in a Turkish population

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire.

Methods: This methodological study included 141 patients with chronic wounds (mean age 63.52±13.94 years; 57% male) treated in a university hospital in Istanbul between March 2022 and April 2023. Content validity was assessed using both expert panel and patient feedback. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha, and item-total correlations were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Test–retest reliability was evaluated in 35 patients after one week interval. Convergent validity was tested using the SF-12 Health Survey. Construct validity was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Results: Based on the Davis method, the item-level content validity indices ranged from 0.90 to 1.00. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for scale items ranged from 0.76 to 0.97, and item–total correlations ranged from 0.42 to 0.78. The test–retest intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.95. Wound-QoL total scores showed a significant negative correlation with SF-12 sub-dimensions (r = -0.284 to -0.718). CFA confirmed the four-factor structure (body, psyche, everyday life, and a separate item 5) with factor loadings ranging from 0.67 to 0.93.

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Wound-QoL-14 is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing wound-related quality of life in patients with chronic wounds.

Anahtar Kelimeler

wound care , chronic wound , quality of life , questionnaires , validity and reliability

Etik Beyan

Before we started the research, the research was interviewed by Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Medical Research Evaluation Board on February 14, 2022 and ethical approval was obtained (2022-03/06). Christine Blome, who contributed significantly to the writing of the manuscript, was included in the research team. Ethics committee approval was obtained again as more people were added to the study (2024-4/137).

Destekleyen Kurum

No financial support was received

Teşekkür

The authors would like to thank the volunteers who participated in this study.

Kaynakça

• 1. Järbrink K, Ni G, Sönnergren H, et al. Prevalence and incidence of chronic wounds and related complications: a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0329-y
• 2. Martinengo L, Olsson M, Bajpai R, et al. Prevalence of chronic wounds in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;29(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.10.005
• 3. Sen CK. Human wound and its burden: updated 2020 compendium of estimates. Adv Wound Care. 2021;10(5):281-292. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2021.0026
• 4. Ozkan S, Yilmaz E, Baydur H, Ertugrul MB. Factors affecting the quality of life of hospitalized persons with chronic foot and lower leg wounds. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34(12):645-650. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000797956.61055.87
• 5. Gould LJ, Alderden J, Aslam R, et al. WHS guidelines for the treatment of pressure ulcers—2023 update. Wound Repair Regen. 2024;32(1):6-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13130
• 6. Powers JG, Higham C, Broussard K, Phillips TJ. Wound healing and treating wounds: chronic wound care and management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(4):607-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.08.070
• 7. Dantas JS, Silva CCM, Nogueira WP, et al. Health-related quality of life predictors in people with chronic wounds. J Tissue Viability. 2022;31(4):741-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2022.07.017
• 8. McCosker L, Tulleners R, Cheng Q, et al. Chronic wounds in Australia: a systematic review of key epidemiological and clinical parameters. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):84-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12996
• 9. Júnior SAO, Oliveira ACS, Dantas Araújo MP, Dantas BAS, Sánchez MCG, Torres GV. Influence of pain on the quality of life in patients with venous ulcers: Cross-sectional association and correlation study in a brazilian primary health care lesions treatment center. Plos one. 2023;18(8):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290180
• 10. Johnson-Kunjukutty S, Delille C. Impact of chronic osteomyelitis on wound healing and the quality of life of the patient with a chronic wound. World Council of Enterostomal Therapists Journal. 2019;39(2):34-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.525753621837957
• 11. Zhu X, Olsson MM, Bajpai R, Järbrink K, Tang W, Car J. Health‐related quality of life and chronic wound characteristics among patients with chronic wounds treated in primary care: A cross‐sectional study in Singapore. Int Wound J. 2022;19(5):1121-1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13708
• 12. Graves N, Phillips CJ, Harding K. A narrative review of the epidemiology and economics of chronic wounds. Br J Dermatol. 2022;187(2):141-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20692
• 13. Monaco D, Iovino P, Lommi M, et al. Outcomes of wound care nurses’ practice in patients with pressure ulcers: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(3-4):372-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15583
• 14. Reinboldt‐Jockenhöfer F, Babadagi Z, Hoppe HD, et al. Association of wound genesis on varying aspects of health‐related quality of life in patients with different types of chronic wounds: results of a cross‐sectional multicentre study. Int Wound J. 2021;18(4):432-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13543
• 15. Gül Ş, Avşar P, Karadağ A, Karaçay P, Gökmen D. The validity and reliability of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life instrument: A methodological study. J Tissue Viability. 2023;32(1):102-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2022.12.003
• 16. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2019:1-32. https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/70/1/139/DC1/embed/inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf
• 17. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
• 18. Gökdemir F, Yılmaz T. Processes of using, modifying, adapting and developing likert type scales. Journal of Nursology. 2023;26(2):148-160. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jnursology/issue/78303/1319364
• 19. Blome C, Baade K, Sebastian Debus E, Price P, Augustin M. The “W ound‐QoL”: A short questionnaire measuring quality of life in patients with chronic wounds based on three established disease‐specific instruments. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(4):504-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12193
• 20. von Stulpnagel CC, da Silva N, Augustin M, et al. Assessing the quality of life of people with chronic wounds by using the cross‐culturally valid and revised wound‐QoL questionnaire. Wound Repair Regen. 2021;29(3):452-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12901
• 21. Janke TM, Kozon V, Valiukeviciene S, et al. Validation of the Wound‐QoL‐17 and the Wound‐QoL‐14 in a European sample of 305 patients with chronic wounds. Int Wound J. 2023;4(3):e14505. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14505
• 22. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-233. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
• 23. Soylu C, Kutuk B. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of SF-12 Health Survey. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2021:1-9. https://doi.org/10.5080/u25700
• 24. Terwee CB, Prinsen C, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs–user manual. Amsterdam: VU University Medical Center. 2018. https://cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-methodology-for-content-validity-user-manual-v1.pdf
• 25. Davis LL. Instrument Review: Getting Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;28(4):563-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
• 26. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;11:366616. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
• 27. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. Int J Test. 2001;1(1):55–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4
• 28. Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation - A discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219854
• 29. Noble S, Scheinost D, Constable RT. A guide to the measurement and interpretation of fMRI test-retest reliability. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;40:27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.12.012
• 30. Montero EC, Sommer R, Augustin M, et al. Validation of the Spanish Wound-QoL Questionnaire. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2021;112(1):44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2020.09.007
• 31. Wei M, Yang Q, Ji H, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Wound‐QoL questionnaire to assess health‐related quality of life in Chinese people with chronic wounds. Int Wound J. 2023;20(6):1903-1910. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14050
• 32. Knudsen JT, Johansen CW, Hansen AØ, Eshoj HR. The Danish wound‐quality of life (Wound‐QoL) questionnaire: translation and psychometric properties. Wound Repair Regen. 2021;29(6):973-984. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12957
• 33. Augustin M, Conde Montero E, et al. Validity and feasibility of the wound‐QoL questionnaire on health‐related quality of life in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(5):852-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12583
• 34. Kang H, Ahn JW. Model Setting and Interpretation of Results in Research Using Structural Equation Modeling: A Checklist with Guiding Questions for Reporting. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2021;15(3):157-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2021.06.001
• 35. Putnick DL, Bornstein MH. Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research. Dev Rev. 2016;41:71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004