There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
The construct validity of a quantitative work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) measure of health outcomes was tested for use in clinical trials, along with its reproducibility when administered by 2 different methods. 106 employed individuals affected by a health problem were randomised to receive either 2 self-administered questionnaires (self administration) or one self-administered questionnaire followed by a telephone interview (interviewer administration). Construct validity of the WPAI measures of time missed from work, impairment of work and regular activities due to overall health and symptoms, were assessed relative to measures of general health perceptions, role (physical), role (emotional), pain, symptom severity and global measures of work and interference with regular activity. Multivariate linear regression models were used to explain the variance in work productivity and regular activity by validation measures. Data generated by interviewer-administration of the WPAI had higher construct validity and fewer omissions than that obtained by self-administration of the instrument. All measures of work productivity and activity impairment were positively correlated with measures which had proven construct validity. These validation measures explained 54 to 64% of variance (p less than 0.0001) in productivity and activity impairment variables of the WPAI. Overall work productivity (health and symptom) was significantly related to general health perceptions and the global measures of interference with regular activity. The self-administered questionnaire had adequate reproducibility but less construct validity than interviewer administration. Both administration methods of the WPAI warrant further evaluation as a measure of morbidity.
This evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. The conference was held on 1 December 2016. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-founded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with the participation of 48 delegates of 42 national and international societies. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease, presenting with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous urticaria and other chronic forms of urticaria are disabling, impair quality of life and affect performance at work and school. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.
[1
]Dermatological Allergology Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology
Allergie‐Centrum‐CharitéCharité ‐ Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Germany
[2
]Serviço de Imunoalergologia Hospital de Santa Maria Lisbon Portugal
[3
]Dermatology Department, Hospital del Mar Parc de Salut Mar IMIMUniversitat Autònoma
de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
[4
]Service de Dermato‐allergologie CHU Poitiers Poitiers France
[5
]Allergy Section Hospital Vall d'Hebron Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR)Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
[6
]ARADyAL Research Network (RD16/0006/0020) Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) Madrid
Spain
[7
]Department of Dermatology Ghent University Hospital Ghent Belgium
[8
]Allergy and Clinical Immunology Smolensk State Medical University Smolensk Russia
[9
]National Institute for Health Research‐Leeds Biomedical Research Centre Leeds Institute
of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine St James's University Hospital Leeds UK
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.