Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±¸°­°ÇÁ¶Áõ Áõ»ó Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ ¼³¹®ÁöÀÇ ½Å·Úµµ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

Reliability of a Questionnaire for Evaluation of Dry Mouth Symptoms

´ëÇѱ¸°­³»°úÇÐȸÁö 2005³â 30±Ç 4È£ p.383 ~ 389
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÁ¤À±/Lee JY ÀÌ¿µ¿Á/°íÈ«¼·/Lee YO/Kho HS

Abstract

±¸°­°ÇÁ¶ÁõÀº ÀÔ¾ÈÀÌ ¸¶¸£´Â ´À³¦ÀÇ ÁÖ°üÀû Áõ»óÀ» ÀǹÌÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î Ÿ¾×ºÐºñÀÇ °¨¼Ò¿¡ µû¸¥ ºÒÃæºÐÇÑ ±¸°­Á¡¸·ÀÇ ½ÀÀ±µµ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¹ß»ýÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶ÁõÀÇ Á¤µµ´Â ½ÇÁ¦ ÃøÁ¤µÈ °´°üÀûÀΠŸ¾×ºÐºñÀ²°ú »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â °æ¿ìµµ ÀÖ¾î ±× Áø´Ü°ú Ä¡·á¿¡ ¾î·Á¿òÀ» ¾ß±âÇÑ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶ÁõÀÇ Áø´Ü°ú Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇØ ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶Áõ ȯÀÚÀÇ ¹®Á¦ÇØ°áÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼³¹®Áö¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ°í ¼³¹®ÁöÀÇ ¹®Ç×µéÀÌ °®´Â ½Å·Úµµ¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ÇâÈÄ ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶ÁõÀÇ ¿¬±¸ ¹× Áø´Ü µµ±¸·Î¼­ÀÇ È°¿ë°¡´É¼ºÀ» ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ¸¦ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ôµµ·Î ´äÇÏ´Â 6 °¡Áö ¹®Ç×°ú ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇൿÀ» ÆľÇÇϱâ À§ÇÑ 4 °¡Áö ¹®Ç×À» °³¹ßÇÏ°í ¹®Ç×µéÀÌ °®´Â ½Å·Úµµ¸¦ Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶ÁõÀÇ Áõ»óÀ» È£¼ÒÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â °Ç°­ÇÑ ¼ºÀÎ ³²³à 88 ¸í (³²ÀÚ 44 ¸í, Æò±Õ 25.6¡¾3.1 ¼¼, ¿©ÀÚ 44 ¸í, Æò±Õ 24.3¡¾2.1 ¼¼)À» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î 2 ȸ¿¡ °ÉÃÄ Áú¹®¿¡ ´äÇϵµ·Ï ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ¸¦ ¹¯´Â 6 °¡Áö ¹®Ç×ÀÇ ±Þ³»»ó°ü°è¼ö(intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC) °ªÀº ³· ½Ã°£ÀÇ ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ(Dry-day)°¡ 0.767, ÀԾȿ¡ ħÀÌ Àû´Ù°í ´À³¢´Â Á¤µµ(Am-sal)°¡ 0.850, ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨À¸·Î ÀÎÇÑ ÀÏ»ó »ýÈ°ÀÇ ºÒÆí°¨ Á¤µµ(Eff-life)°¡ 0.791·Î ¸Å¿ì ³ôÀº ½Å·Úµµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú°í, ¹ã ¶Ç´Â ¾Æħ ±â»ó½ÃÀÇ ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ(Dry-PM)°¡ 0.563, ½Ä»ç½ÃÀÇ ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ(Dry-eat)°¡ 0.674, À½½Ä¹°À» »ïÅ°±â Èûµç Á¤µµ(Dif-swal)°¡ 0.641·Î ³ôÀº ±Þ³»»ó°ü°è¼ö °ªÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù.
2. 6 °³ÀÇ ¹®Ç×µéÀÇ ³»Àû ÀÏÄ¡µµ¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â Å©·Ð¹ÙÈåÀÇ ¾ËÆÄ(Cronbach¡¯s alpha) °ªÀº 0.928·Î ¸Å¿ì ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
3. ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇൿÀ» ÆľÇÇϱâ À§ÇÑ 4 °¡Áö ¹®Ç×µéÀÇ ÄÚÇîÀÇ Ä«ÆÄ(Cohen¡¯s kappa) °ªÀº ÀáÀÚ¸® ¿·¿¡ ¹°À» ÁغñÇÏ°Ô µÇ´Â ºóµµ(H2O-bed)´Â 0.850À¸·Î ¸Å¿ì ³ôÀº ½Å·Úµµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú°í, ÀÔÀÌ ¸»¶ó ÀáÀ» ±ú´Â ºóµµ(Night-awake)°¡ 0.506, ¸¶¸¥À½½Ä ¼·Ãë½Ã¿¡ ¹°À» ¸¶½Ã°Ô µÇ´Â ºóµµ(Sip-liq)°¡ 0.419, ²­À̳ª »çÅÁÀ» ¸Ô°Ô µÇ´Â ºóµµ(Gum-candy)°¡ 0.407·Î ³ôÀº ½Å·Úµµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù.
ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °á°ú·ÎºÎÅÍ VAS ôµµ·Î ´äº¯ÇÏ´Â ÁÖ°üÀû ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶°¨ÀÇ Á¤µµ¸¦ ¹¯´Â 6 °¡Áö Áú¹®°ú ÁÖ¾îÁø º¸±â¸¦ ¼±ÅÃÇÏ¿© ´äº¯ÇÏ´Â ±¸°­°ÇÁ¶Áõ¿¡ µû¸¥ ÇൿÀ» ¹¯´Â 4 °¡Áö Áú¹®À¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÈ ¼³¹®Àº Áߵ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ½Å·Úµµ¸¦ °¡Áö°í ÀÖ°í VAS ôµµ·Î ´äº¯ÇÏ´Â 6 °¡Áö Áú¹®Àº ¸Å¿ì ³ôÀº ³»Àû ÀÏÄ¡µµ¸¦ °¡Áö°í ÀÖÀ½À» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.

Xerostomia is defined as a subjective complaint of dry mouth that may be perceived when there is insufficient mucosal wetting. However, the diagnosis and treatment of xerostomia is not that simple because of the fact that the subjective awareness of dry mouth is not always correlated with a diminution in the flow of saliva and there is always a difference between individuals in salivary flow rates needed for normal oral function. In the present study, the aim was to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the dry mouth symptoms and to analyze its reliability and usability as a diagnostic and analytic tool for xerostomia. The questionnaire which consists of 6 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) type questions to evaluate the subjective oral dryness and 4 questions to evaluate behavior to avoid oral dryness was developed and administered twice with 1 week¡¯s interval to the healthy 88 young adults without dry mouth symptoms (44 males and 44 females; mean age was 25.6¡¾3.1 years in male and 24.3¡¾2.1 years in female). The results were as follows. 1 The intraclass correlation coefficients of 6 questions to evaluate the subjective oral dryness were as significantly high as 0.767 for the degree of oral dryness at other times of the day, 0.850 for the amount of saliva in the mouth, and 0.791 for the degree of effect on daily life due to oral dryness and as high as 0.563 for the degree of oral dryness at night or on awakening, 0.674 for the degree of oral dryness during eating, and 0.641 for the degree of difficulty in swallowing foods. 2. Cronbach¡¯s alpha value of 6 questions was 0.982. It can be concluded that the series of questions to evaluate the subjective oral dryness has high internal consistency. 3. Cohen¡¯s kappa values of 4 questions to evaluate behavior to relieve oral dryness were as significantly high as 0.850 for the frequency of keeping a glass of water at the bedside and as high as 0.506 the frequency of awakening during sleeping due to oral dryness, 0.419 for the frequency of sipping liquids to aid in eating dry foods, and 0.407 for the frequency of using a candy or chewing gum due to oral dryness. From the results, it can be concluded that the questionnaire consisting of 6 VAS type questions to evaluate the subjective oral dryness and 4 questions to evaluate behavior to relieve oral dryness has reliability of good to excellent level, and that the series of 6 VAS type questions has significantly high internal consistency to evaluate the subjective oral dryness.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI