摘要
目的了解支气管哮喘生命质量量表(AQLQ)在评估支气管哮喘患者生命质量时的效果,并与非特异性生命质量量表SF36量表比较。方法采用4周非双盲定群研究方法,分别以7分制、5分制支气管哮喘生命质量量表(7AQLQ、5AQLQ)和SF36量表对48例支气管哮喘患者在初诊、治疗2周和4周时进行生命质量评估,随访期间患者每日监测呼气峰流速(PEF)并记哮喘日记。结果48例支气管哮喘患者呼气峰流速平均值占预计值百分比(PEF占预计值%)从初诊的55%,提高到治疗2周后的63%和4周后的66%(P<0.05);7-AQLQ和5-AQLQ总均分分别从初诊的5.5、4.0提高到治疗2周后的6.0、4.3及4周后的6.2、4.4(P<0.01),SF36量表总分虽从初诊的549提高到2周后的567和4周后的576,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);AQLQ总均分与PEF占预计值%的相关系数明显高于SF36量表与PEF占预计值%的相关系数。结论在评估支气管哮喘患者生命质量时,AQLQ比SF36量表灵敏。
Objective To compare the ef fi ciency of specific quality of life (QOL) scales in evaluation of the quality of life in patients with asthma with that of generic QOL instrument SF36 (the MOS 3 6-item short form health survey)Methods Totally, 48 pa tients of asthma were evaluated by the asthma quality of life questionnaire of s even scores and five scores (7-AQLQ and 5-AQLQ) , and SF36 at their initial vi sits and visits after treatment for two weeks and four weeks During the period of follow-up, their peak expiratory flow (PEF) were monitored daily and their asthma diaries were recordedResults The average PEF of 48 patients increased to 63% of the predicted measures in the 2-week and 66% in the 4-week from 55% in the initial visit (P<005) Total scores increase d to 60 and 43 in the 2-week and 62 and 44 in the 4-week with 7-AQLQ and 5-AQLQ, respectively, from 55 and 40 in the initial visit, respectively (P<001) Total scores of SF36 increased to 567 in the 2-week and 576 in the 4-week, respectively, from 549 in the initial visit, but without statistic al significance (P>005)Coefficient of correlation between total scores o f AQLQ and PEF percentage of the predicted measures was significantly h igher than that between the scores of SF36 and PEF percentage of the predicted m easuresConclusion AQLQ was more sensitive than SF36 in evaluation of the quality of life in patients with asthma
出处
《中华全科医师杂志》
2005年第4期213-216,共4页
Chinese Journal of General Practitioners
