■慢性咳嗽,持续超过8周的咳嗽,包括难治性慢性咳嗽(RCC)和原因不明的慢性咳嗽(UCC)。需要通过患者报告结果(PRO)来更好地了解对患者最重要的慢性咳嗽影响。19项莱斯特咳嗽问卷(LCQ),现有的慢性咳嗽的PRO措施,评估咳嗽对身体的影响,心理,和社会领域。然而,LCQ在RCC/UCC患者中评估这些概念的内容效度尚未确定.
■评估LCQ在RCC/UCC患者中的内容效度。
■横截面,定性访谈研究。
■首先,评估了先前完成的RCC/UCC成人(N=30)的定性访谈结果,并将其映射到LCQ概念.接下来,临床咳嗽专家审查了每个LCQ项目,并评估了其概念对RCC/UCC患者的重要性。最后,在患有RCC/UCC(N=20)的成年人中进行了半结构化访谈,包括概念启发和认知汇报,以引出一组全面的参与者经验,并评估在该人群中使用LCQ的适当性.
■过去和现在的定性访谈报告的概念包括在所有LCQ项目中,LCQ评估了大多数报告为“最麻烦”的影响。在目前的研究中,所有参与者均表示,减少咳嗽频率将是一个重要的治疗目标.在认知汇报期间,每个LCQ项目都得到70%的参与者的认可。此外,参与者通常能够理解,召回,并为每个LCQ项目选择一个响应。所有参与者和临床专家都表示LCQ是适当的,并评估了与RCC/UCC患者最相关的影响。
■我们的发现支持LCQ的内容有效性,并证明该措施适合目的,并且包括RCC/UCC成人的重要咳嗽影响。
UNASSIGNED: Chronic cough, a cough lasting >8 weeks, includes refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are needed to better understand chronic cough impacts that matter most to patients. The 19-item Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), an existing PRO measure of chronic cough, assesses impacts of cough across physical, psychological, and social domains. However, the content validity of the LCQ evaluating these concepts in patients with RCC/UCC had not been established.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the content validity of the LCQ in patients with RCC/UCC.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional, qualitative interview
study.
UNASSIGNED: First, previously completed qualitative interview results in adults with RCC/UCC (N = 30) were evaluated and mapped to LCQ concepts. Next, a clinical cough expert reviewed each LCQ item and assessed the salience of its concepts for patients with RCC/UCC. Finally, semistructured interviews-including both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing-were conducted in adults with RCC/UCC (N = 20) to elicit a comprehensive set of participant experiences and to assess the appropriateness of using the LCQ in this population.
UNASSIGNED: Concepts reported in the past and present qualitative interviews were included across all LCQ items, and most impacts reported to be the \"most bothersome\" were assessed in the LCQ. In the current
study, all participants indicated that reduced cough frequency would be an important treatment target. During cognitive debriefing, each LCQ item was endorsed by ⩾70% of participants. Additionally, participants were generally able to understand, recall, and select a response for each LCQ item. All participants and the clinical expert indicated that the LCQ was appropriate and assessed the impacts most relevant to patients with RCC/UCC.
UNASSIGNED: Our findings support the content validity of the LCQ and demonstrate that this measure is fit-for-purpose and includes important cough impacts in adults with RCC/UCC.