hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of corresponding scores From the cleft hearing appearance and speech questionnaire (CHASQ) and CLEFT-Q in Swedish patients with cleft lip and/or palate
Lunds universitet.
Lunds universitet.
Kristianstad University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Nursing and Integrated Health Sciences. Kristianstad University, Faculty of Health Science, Research Environment PRO-CARE, Patient Reported Outcomes - Clinical Assessment Research and Education.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2218-6446
Lunds universitet.
2020 (English)In: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, ISSN 1055-6656, E-ISSN 1545-1569Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to compare corresponding scores between 2 existing cleft-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-Cleft Hearing Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (CHASQ) and CLEFT-Q. The second aim of the study was to investigate patient opinion on the 2 PROMs.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTING: Participants were recruited from a University Hospital. They answered CHASQ and CLEFT-Q either in the hospital or at home.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three participants with cleft lip and/or palate, aged 10 to 19 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: CHASQ and CLEFT-Q.

RESULTS: The CHASQ scores and the corresponding CLEFT-Q scores on appearance correlated significantly. Corresponding scores regarding speech did not correlate significantly. A majority, 15 (58%) participants, answered that they liked CLEFT-Q more than CHASQ, 18 participants (69%) thought CHASQ was easier to complete, and 19 (76%) thought CLEFT-Q would better inform health care professionals.

CONCLUSION: Both instruments showed strengths and limitations. Clinicians will have to consider each instrument's respective qualities when choosing to implement either PROM.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2020.
Keywords [en]
CHASQ, CLEFT-Q, cleft lip and/or cleft palate, patient-reported outcomes
National Category
Health Sciences Surgery Otorhinolaryngology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-21276DOI: 10.1177/1055665620964124ISI: 000658574700008PubMedID: 33047614OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-21276DiVA, id: diva2:1476205
Note

Funding agency: Foundation for Research in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Skane University Hospital in Malmo

Available from: 2020-10-14 Created: 2020-10-14 Last updated: 2021-07-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(237 kB)189 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 237 kBChecksum SHA-512
32801a5ef6b4df0cf2ac77ce3358d0057cb8d8597abaf9b1f05f8146821ab59efdbc98bed15830a6763cd8b90ade85782632c59d70744e6384ac3c9b15bf8c0f
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Persson, Martin
By organisation
Department of Nursing and Integrated Health SciencesResearch Environment PRO-CARE, Patient Reported Outcomes - Clinical Assessment Research and Education
In the same journal
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Health SciencesSurgeryOtorhinolaryngology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 189 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 92 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf