Methods: In Phase 1, a multidisciplinary team identified domains for measurement, operationalized impairment levels, and reviewed visual languages for the scale. In Phase 2, feedback was sought from health professionals and the general public. In Phase 3, 366 participants completed preliminary testing on the revised draft, including 162 UK paramedics, and rated the scale on feasibility and usability. In Phase 4, following translation into Malay, the final prototype was tested in 95 participants in Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo.
Results: The final scale incorporated 14 domains, each conceptualized with 3-6 response levels. All domains were rated as "understood well" by most participants (range 64-94%). Percentage agreement with positive statements regarding appearance, feasibility, and usefulness ranged from 66% to 95%. Overall feedback from health-care professionals supported its content validity.
Conclusions: The PFFS is comprehensive, feasible, and appears generalizable across countries, and has face and content validity. Investigation into the reliability and predictive validity of the scale is currently underway.
AIM: We aimed to test validity and reliability of Malay language translations of GERDQ and QOLRAD in a primary care setting.
METHODS: The questionnaires were first translated into the Malay language (GERDQ-M and QOLRAD-M). Patients from primary care clinics with suspected GERD were recruited to complete GERDQ-M, QOLRAD-M, and Malay-translated 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36 or SF-36-M), and underwent endoscopy and 24-h pH-impedance test.
RESULTS: A total of 104 (mean age 47.1 years, women 51.9%) participants were enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity for GERDQ-M cut-off score ≥8 were 90.2 and 77.4%, respectively. Based on this cut-off score, 54.7% had a high probability of GERD diagnosis. GERD-M score ≥8 vs. < 8 was associated with erosive esophagitis (p < 0.001), hiatus hernia (p = 0.03), greater DeMeester score (p = 0.001), and Zerbib scores for acid refluxes (p < 0.001) but not non-acid refluxes (p = 0.1). Mean total scores of QOLRAD-M and SF-36-M were correlated (r = 0.74, p < 0.001). GERDQ-M ≥8, erosive esophagitis, and DeMeester ≥14.72 were associated with impaired QOLRAD-M in all domains (all p < 0.02) but this was not seen with SF-36.
CONCLUSIONS: GERDQ-M and QOLRAD-M are valid and reliable tools applicable in a primary care setting.
METHOD: We translated into Malay a brief screening instrument for ascertainment of epilepsy designed and validated by Ottman et al., using the three-stage cross-cultural adaptation process developed by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. We then administered the translated questionnaire via online survey to 162 cases (patients with epilepsy under follow-up care at the neurology clinic in University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur) and 146 controls with no known history of epilepsy for validation.
RESULTS: Applying the most liberal definition for a positive screen, we obtained a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.8-98.5%), with a specificity of 66.4% (95% CI: 58.1-73.0%) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 2.0%. The most stringent definition for a positive screen (only epilepsy) resulted in a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI: 62.0-72.6%), specificity of 98.6% (95% CI: 94.6-99.7%), and PPV of 26.6%. Narrowing the definition of a positive screen decreased sensitivity but improved PPVs. When compared to the original English questionnaire, the sensitivities were similar for all four definitions of a positive screen.
CONCLUSION: This is the first validated epilepsy screening questionnaire in the Malay language and represents a useful tool for the ascertainment of epilepsy in population-based studies.