基于ICF的耳鸣困扰与抑郁症状评估问卷内容重叠分析

文献信息

中文摘要

引言： 耳鸣的体验因人而异，尤其是在感知到的困扰方面。心理因素在这种变异性中起主要作用，许多研究已证明抑郁症状与耳鸣困扰之间存在相关性。这两种构念通常通过自我报告问卷进行评估。然而，这些问卷之间的内容重叠可能使得区分构念和解释其关系变得困难。鉴于评估耳鸣困扰和抑郁症状的问卷内容存在差异，需要对其异同进行全面检查。因此，本研究旨在使用国际功能、残疾和健康分类（ICF）框架，系统评估耳鸣困扰和抑郁症状问卷的内容重叠。
方法与分析： 内容分析纳入了六份经过验证、多条目、自我报告的耳鸣困扰问卷（THI、TQ、mTQ、THQ、TRQ、TFI）和七份经过验证、多条目、自我报告的抑郁症状问卷（BDI-II、HADS-D、SDS、PHQ-9、CES-D、SCL-90-R抑郁子量表、DASS-42抑郁子量表）。根据既定的链接规则，将这些问卷所有条目的潜在概念链接到最具体的ICF类别。基于分配的第二级ICF类别，分析耳鸣困扰和抑郁症状问卷之间的重叠。
结果： 与耳鸣困扰问卷相比，抑郁症状问卷在ICF类别覆盖上表现出较少的多样性，分别为14个和23个第二级ICF类别。耳鸣困扰和抑郁症状问卷共享七个第二级类别：能量和驱力功能、睡眠功能、注意力功能、情感功能、思维功能、人际互动和关系以及娱乐和休闲。内容分析显示，在第二级ICF类别上，TQ与抑郁症状问卷的重叠程度最低（11.54-26.92%），而TRQ最高（61.54-73.08%）。在抑郁症状问卷中，SDS与耳鸣困扰问卷的重叠最少（40-60%），而DASS-42抑郁子量表重叠最多（85.71-100%）。
结论： 耳鸣困扰和抑郁症状问卷之间的重叠强调了根据特定临床或研究目标仔细选择评估工具并解释其结果的重要性。这种内容分析可以指导关于这种选择的决策。

英文摘要

INTRODUCTION: The experience of tinnitus varies considerably among individuals, particularly in terms of perceived distress. Psychological factors play a major role in this variability, and numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between symptoms of depression and tinnitus distress. Both constructs are commonly assessed through self-report questionnaires. However, content overlap between these questionnaires can make it challenging to differentiate the constructs and interpret their relationship. Given the variation in content among questionnaires assessing tinnitus distress and depressive symptoms, a comprehensive examination of their similarities and differences is needed. This study therefore aims to systematically assess the content overlap of tinnitus distress and depressive symptom questionnaires using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Six validated, multi-item, self-report questionnaires measuring tinnitus distress (THI, TQ, mTQ, THQ, TRQ, TFI) and seven validated, multi-item, self-report depressive symptom questionnaires (BDI-II, HADS-D, SDS, PHQ-9, CES-D, SCL-90-R depression subscale, DASS-42 depression subscale) were included in the content analysis. The underlying concepts of all items of these questionnaires were linked to the most specific ICF categories based on established linking rules. The overlap between the tinnitus distress and depressive symptom questionnaires was analyzed based on the assigned second-level ICF categories.
RESULTS: The depressive symptom questionnaires demonstrated less diversity in ICF category coverage compared to the tinnitus distress questionnaires, with 14 versus 23 second-level ICF categories. Seven second-level categories were shared between tinnitus distress and depressive symptom questionnaires; energy and drive functions, sleep functions, attention functions, emotional functions, thought functions, interpersonal interactions and relationships, and recreation and leisure. The content analysis showed that, at the second-level ICF category, the TQ had the lowest degree of overlap with the depressive symptom questionnaires (11.54-26.92%), while the TRQ exhibited the highest (61.54-73.08%). Among the depressive symptom questionnaires, the SDS showed the least overlap with the tinnitus distress questionnaires (40-60%), whereas the DASS-42 depression subscale demonstrated the most overlap (85.71-100%).
CONCLUSION: The overlap between tinnitus distress and depressive symptom questionnaires emphasizes the importance of carefully selecting assessment tools and interpreting their results, based on specific clinical or research goals. This content analysis can guide making decisions about this selection.