Development Of New Questionnaire Research Articles

Validation of the Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) tool: a new tool to assess the quality of health information provided by AI platforms.

The widespread diffusion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms is revolutionizing how health-related information is disseminated, thereby highlighting the need for tools to evaluate the quality of such information. This study aimed to propose and validate the Quality Assessment of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI), a tool specifically designed to assess the quality of health information provided by AI platforms. The QAMAI tool has been developed by a panel of experts following guidelines for the development of new questionnaires. A total of 30 responses from ChatGPT4, addressing patient queries, theoretical questions, and clinical head and neck surgery scenarios were assessed by 27 reviewers from 25 academic centers worldwide. Construct validity, internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability were assessed to validate the tool. The validation was conducted on the basis of 792 assessments for the 30 responses given by ChatGPT4. The results of the exploratory factor analysis revealed a unidimensional structure of the QAMAI with a single factor comprising all the items that explained 51.1% of the variance with factor loadings ranging from 0.449 to 0.856. Overall internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.837). The Interclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.983 (95% CI 0.973-0.991; F (29,542) = 68.3; p < 0.001), indicating excellent reliability. Test-retest reliability analysis revealed a moderate-to-strong correlation with a Pearson's coefficient of 0.876 (95% CI 0.859-0.891; p < 0.001). The QAMAI tool demonstrated significant reliability and validity in assessing the quality of health information provided by AI platforms. Such a tool might become particularly important/useful for physicians as patients increasingly seek medical information on AI platforms.

Effect of the Pruritus on the Quality of Life: A Preliminary Study

BackgroundPruritus affects the quality of life (QoL) in the patients. However, little is known of the impacts of itching on the QoL in the literature.ObjectiveIn this study, a questionnaire eliciting specific responses about pruritus was used to determine the effect of itching and its severity on QoL in chronic pruritic patients.MethodsOne hundred ten adult patients with chronic pruritus were surveyed. Once itch severity had been self-reported by patients, together with Skindex-29, they have been given the 18-item Pruritus-related Life Quality Index (PLQI) questionnaire, which was used to generated the new index.ResultsSignificant correlations have been found between the pruritus severity score of participants and their total Skindex-29 (p<0.001) with its function, emotion and symptom subscale scores (p<0.001 for each). Also, significant correlations were evident between total PLQI (p<0.001) and its psychosocial negativities, difficulties in everyday activities and social live subscale scores (p<0.001 for each). In particular, the emotion subscale of Skindex-29 (p=0.02) and psychosocial negativity subscale of PLQI (p=0.02) were significantly high in psychopathologic patients. A highly positive statistical correlation between Skindex-29 and PLQI scales was evident (r=0.845, p<0.001). For reliability, Cronbach's coefficient a coefficients were 0.931 for the Skindex-29 scale and 0.918 for the PLQI scale.ConclusionThe results demonstrate that chronic pruritus appreciably reduces the QoL. PLQI could be used in the development of new questionnaires for determining the QoL of patients with chronic itch.

A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients.

Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment outcome for head and neck cancer. Our purpose was to critically review published disease-specific QOL instruments. Medline and Cancerlit were searched from 1966-1999. Eight disease-specific QOL instruments were identified, described, and appraised for development, sensibility, reliability, validity and responsiveness to change. Several of the available instruments have been well-developed and characterized. No one instrument is ideal for all purposes. When selecting a disease-specific QOL instrument for head and neck cancer patients, careful consideration must be given to disease subsite, treatment, timing of assessment, clinical setting, study purpose and research question. Validation of QOL instruments is an ongoing process. Direct comparisons of different instruments may help to establish the most appropriate questionnaire for each situation. Efforts should be focused on the evaluation of existing instruments, rather than the development of new questionnaires.

The Development and Standardisation of a New Interest Questionnaire

The Development and Standardisation of a New Interest Questionnaire

Health Status Measurement Instruments in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with primary respiratory impairment, disability and handicap, as well as with secondary impairments not necessarily confined to the respiratory system. Because the primary goals of managing patients with COPD include relief of dyspnea and the improvement of health‐related quality of life (HRQL), a direct measurement of HRQL is important. Fourteen disease‐specific and nine generic questionnaires (four health profiles and five utility measures) most commonly used to measure health status in patients with COPD were reviewed. The measures were classified according to their domain of interest, and their measurement properties ‐ specifications, validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability ‐ were described. This review suggests several findings. Currently used health status instruments usually refer to the patients’ perception of performance in three major domains of HRQL ‐ somatic sensation, physical and occupational function, and psychological state. The choice of a questionnaire must be related to its purpose, with a clear distinction being made between its evaluative and discriminative function. In their evaluative function, only a few instruments fulfilled the criteria of responsiveness, and the interpretability of most questionnaires is limited. Generic questionnaires should not be used alone in clinical trials as evaluative instruments because of their inability to detect change over time. Further validation and improved interpretability of existing instruments would be of greater benefit to clinicians and scientists than the development of new questionnaires.