Search

The objective of this study was to define 'quality' of headache care, and develop indicators that are applicable in different settings and cultures and to all types of headache. No definition of quality of headache care has been formulated. Two sets of quality indicators, proposed in the US and UK, are limited to their localities and/or specific to migraine and their development received no input from people with headache. We first undertook a literature review. Then we conducted a series of focus-group consultations with key stakeholders (doctors, nurses and patients) in headache care. From the findings we proposed a large number of putative quality indicators, and refined these and reduced their number in consultations with larger international groups of stakeholder representatives. We formulated a definition of quality from the quality indicators. Five main themes were identified: (1) headache services; (2) health professionals; (3) patients; (4) financial resources; (5) political agenda and legislation. An initial list of 160 putative quality indicators in 14 domains was reduced to 30 indicators in 9 domains. These gave rise to the following multidimensional definition of quality of headache care: 'Good-quality headache care achieves accurate diagnosis and individualized management, has appropriate referral pathways, educates patients about their headaches and their management, is convenient and comfortable, satisfies patients, is efficient and equitable, assesses outcomes and is safe.' Quality in headache care is multidimensional and resides in nine essential domains that are of equal importance. The indicators are currently being tested for feasibility of use in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a short form health survey, the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8), cross-culturally, by comparing results gained from this instrument to the original longer form instrument-the PDQ-39., Design: Data are from the Global Parkinson's Disease Survey., Outcomes: The 8-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire Single Index Score (PDQ-8-SI). In this study, we evaluate response rate, scaling assumptions, and data quality, in terms of comparability of results with the parent form from which the PDQ-8 was derived, of the instrument in the USA, Canada, Spain, Italy and Japan., Results: The PDQ-8 was found to produce results that were very similar to the parent form across all five countries. However, it should be borne in mind that the PDQ-8 was nested within the PDQ-39, and results may be influenced by this., Conclusions: Results suggest that the PDQ-8 is a valid and reliable measure that can be appropriately and meaningfully used in cross-cultural studies.

Background and Objectives: Health status measures, used to measure the subjective functioning and well-being of respondents, are increasingly being used in trials of treatments that are undertaken in a variety of countries. To assess comparability of results gained from such cross-cultural studies, it is important for researchers to know the comparability of instruments across cultures. One measure widely used in cross-cultural studies is the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). We evaluated response rate, data quality, score reliability, and scaling assumptions of the instrument in the United States, Canada, Spain, Italy, and Japan., Methods: Our data were gained from the Global Parkinson's Disease Survey, a cross-national survey, in which the PDQ-39 was interviewer administered to respondents., Results: Our data suggest that the PDQ-39 is, for the most part, a valid and reliable measure that can be appropriately and meaningfully used in cross-cultural studies. However, one of the dimensions of the measure, Social Support, may not be sufficiently reliable to be used as a primary endpoint in trials., Conclusion: The PDQ-39 seems to be sufficiently robust to be used in trials and surveys in cross-cultural studies.