Analyzing the Dimensions of the Quality of Life in Hepatitis B Patientsusing Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Abstract

Background and Objectives:The scope of the quality of life assessment is not widespread in any time like today. Economists, social scientists and politicians look at this topic from the particular approach. The life quality in hepatitis B patients regarding the degree of its progress is considered a major concern in these patients. Thus, the aim of the study was analyzing the dimensions of the life quality of a group of people suffering from hepatitis B in Mazandaran province in 2012.Methods:This study was done by descriptive, cross-sectional method on 210 (118 women and 92 men) hepatitis B patients that six month have passed from their diagnosis and formation of follow-up form in health centers, using access sampling method atsix regions of Mazandaran province. The instruments of the study were the questionnaire of World Health Organization questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) and the chronic liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ). For analyzing the data from descriptive statistics and Kolmogrov-Smirnov test, one sample t-test, two stage Confirmatoryfactor analysis, Spss and Lisrel software has been used.Results:Findings showed that the social relationship dimension with factor loading of 0.81 has the most amount of coefficient of effectiveness; physical health with factor loading of 0.72, mental health with factor loading of 0.63 and environmental health with factor loading of 0.55 have the least amount of coefficient of effectiveness in creating the generallife quality of hepatitis B patients. In the quality of life in hepatitis patients, the emotional function with factor loading of 0.76 has the most coefficient of effectiveness, activity dimension with factor loading of 0.67, fatigue withfactor loading of 0.47, abdominal syptoms with factor loading of 0.42 and worry with factor loading of 0.32 have the least coeficient of effectivness in making CLDQ domains of hepatit B patients.Conclusions:The general quality of life in patients had been below average and social relationship and emotional function must be properly investigated and managed in hepatitis B patients in order to improve life quality. WHOQOL-BREF and CLQD proved to be a useful instrument to assess general life quality in patients and can be helpful to find practical strategies to improving life quality in these patients.

Association between retirement behavior and financial goals: A comparison between urban and rural citizens in China

“…The requirement for SEM is acceptable model fit, which is indicated by a CFI and NFI value of 0.90 or higher (Suhr, n.d.), AGFI and GFI values of 0.7 or higher (Abedi et al, 2015). Also, for SEM, sample sizes above 200 as considered large; we had 713 samples in this analysis, and therefore the CMIN value higher than three is accepted (Hair et al, 2006).…”

Predictors of Quality of Life in Transfusion-dependent Thalassemia Patients Based on the PRECEDE Model: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

“…In this study, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) were used. The model was considered to have an acceptable fit if CFI > 0.9, RMSEA < 0.08, GFI > 0.8, and AGFI > 0.8 [30,31]. The structural model was evaluated by testing the significance of all direct and indirect effects specified in the model to determine whether the independent variables (exogenous latent variables) and mediating variable have direct and indirect effects on the dependent variable (endogenous latent variable).…”

Psychometric Evaluation of the Korean Version of the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (S-EBPQ)

“…Next, in the CFA, the goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were assessed. For GFI and CFI, with a cut-off value of 0.80, optimal goodness of fit was determined when the values were 0.90 or higher [26]. For RMSEA, a value of less than 0.08 indicated high goodness of fit, while a value of less than 0.10 indicated moderate goodness of fit [27].…”