Development and psychometric tests of the Chinese-version low vision quality of life questionnaire

Background/Aims: To develop and assess the psychometric validity of a Chinese language Vision Health related quality-of-life (VRQoL) measurement instrument for the Chinese visually impaired. Methods: The Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (LVQOL) was translated and adapted into the Chinese-version Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (CLVQOL). The CLVQOL was completed by 100 randomly selected people with low vision (primary group) and 100 people with normal vision (control group). Ninety-four participants from the primary group completed the CLVQOL a second time 2 weeks later (test-retest group). The internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, item-internal consistency, item-discrimination validity, construct validity and discriminatory power of the CLVQOL were calculated. Results: The review committee agreed that the CLVQOL replicated the meaning of the LVQOL and was sensitive to cultural differences. The Cronbach's α coefficient and the split-half coefficient for the four scales and total CLVQOL scales were 0.75-0.97. The test-retest reliability as estimated by the intraclass correlations coefficient was 0.69-0.95. Item-internal consistency was >0.4 and item-discrimination validity was generally <0.40. The Varimax rotation factor analysis of the CLVQOL identified four principal factors. the quality-of-life rating of four subscales and the total score of the CLVQOL of the primary group were lower than those of the Control group, both in hospital-based subjects and community-based subjects. Conclusion: The CLVQOL Chinese is a culturally specific vision-related quality-of-life measure instrument. It satisfies conventional psychometric criteria, discriminates visually healthy populations from low vision patients and may be valuable in screening the local community as well as for use in clinical practice or research. © Springer 2005.

A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products

OBJECTIVES: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products 'won't work', following the UK government's decision to 'wait and see' until further evidence is available. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. RESULTS: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work'. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work' lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria-subject matter, independence and peer-review status-to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.

Impact of severity and type of depression on quality of life in cases identified in the community

BACKGROUND: The impact of different levels of depression severity on quality of life (QoL) is not well studied, particularly regarding ICD-10 criteria. The ICD classification of depressive episodes in three levels of severity is also controversial and the less severe category, mild, has been considered as unnecessary and not clearly distinguishable from non-clinical states. The present work aimed to test the relationship between depression severity according to ICD-10 criteria and several dimensions of functioning as assessed by Medical Outcome Study (MOS) 36-item Short Form general health survey (SF-36) at the population level. METHOD: A sample of 551 participants from the second phase of the Outcome of Depression International Network (ODIN) study (228 controls without depression and 313 persons fulfilling ICD criteria for depressive episode) was selected for a further assessment of several variables, including QoL related to physical and mental health as measured with the SF-36. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between controls and the depression group were found in both physical and mental markers of health, regardless of the level of depression severity; however, there were very few differences in QoL between levels of depression as defined by ICD-10. Regardless of the presence of depression, disability, widowed status, being a woman and older age were associated with worse QoL in a structural equation analysis with covariates. Likewise, there were no differences according to the type of depression (single-episode versus recurrent). CONCLUSIONS: These results cast doubt on the adequacy of the current ICD classification of depression in three levels of severity.