↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validation of the Japanese translation of the Dysphagia Handicap Index

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Validation of the Japanese translation of the Dysphagia Handicap Index
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s126052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chihiro Oda, Toshiyuki Yamamoto, Yutaka Fukumoto, Keigo Nakayama, Masako Sato, Miho Murata, Yoko Kobayashi

Abstract

We developed, and examined the reliability and validity of, a Japanese version of the Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI; DHI-J), which is a self-reported measure to assess the quality of life (QOL) of individuals with dysphagia. The DHI-J was developed via the back-translation method: the DHI was translated into Japanese and then translated back into English by a native English speaker. The back translation was discussed with and approved by the DHI's lead author. A total of 229 patients (119 males, 110 females; median age: 66 years) who underwent videofluorography at our hospital between January and December 2013 and 65 controls (23 males, 42 females; median age: 44 years) were included in the study. All the subjects completed the DHI-J and self-reported their dysphagia severity. Twenty-three patients repeated the procedure 1 week later. Patients' swallowing function was classified as "normal", "moderately impaired", or "severely impaired", and the DHI-J total scores were compared between the severity groups. The internal consistency of the DHI-J was high (Cronbach's α=0.95), as was the test-retest reliability of the 23 patients who answered the questionnaire twice (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.98, P<0.01). The DHI-J total score and its three subscale scores were significantly higher among the patients than among controls. A significant correlation (ρ=0.85) was observed between the DHI-J total score and self-reported dysphagia severity score. Regarding the comparison of DHI-J scores by severity groups, the DHI-J total scores significantly differed between the normal and moderately impaired groups, and the normal and severely impaired groups. However, the moderately and severely impaired groups showed no significant difference in scores. The DHI-J is a reliable and valid questionnaire for assessing the QOL of patients with dysphagia. However, we did not survey patients with cerebrovascular diseases; thus, the questionnaire must be validated for that patient group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#810
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,007
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#31
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.