4.2 Article

Validation of the 10-Item Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis-Handicap Index quality of life questionnaire

Journal

CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/coa.14120

Keywords

self-assessment questionnaire; unilateral vocal fold paralysis; validation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study validates the reliability and validity of the UVFP-HI-10 questionnaire for assessing the quality of life in patients with UVFP. The questionnaire can be used to evaluate the impact of specific clinical symptoms on patients' quality of life.
Objectives: To validate and test the reliability of the 10-Item Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis-Voice Handicap Index (UVFP-HI-10) quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for patients with UVFP.Design: Prospective describe study based on perceptive surveys.Participants: We recruited 61 patients with UVFP and 53 healthy individuals comprised the control group.Main Outcome Measures: Both the patients and controls completed the UVFP-HI-10 questionnaire. A statistical analysis was performed to assess the internal consistency and validity of the survey. In addition, maximum phonation time (MPT) was used to objectively measure patient QoL.Results: Internal consistency was high (alpha = .914) and the correlation with MPT was significant (rs = -0.722). The estimated marginal mean in the discriminant validity study was around seven times higher in the UVFP group compared to the controls. The UVFP-HI-10 cut-off value was more than 0.9 and the sensitivity and specificity were more than 0.8.Conclusions: The UVFP-HI-10 is a self-administered patient-reported outcome questionnaire with a high reliability and excellent criterion-based validity. This questionnaire can be used to evaluate specific clinical complaints (e.g., vocalisation, swallowing, and breathing) in terms of their impact on QoL in patients with UVFP. Thus, its use is appropriate as a basic assessment tool as part of a specific UVFP treatment protocol.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available