Development and validation of a lifetime exposure questionnaire for use among Chinese populations

Abstract

The sunlight exposure questionnaire for use in the Chinese population was constructed based on extensive literature review and item suitability for measuring life-time exposure. The content validity index (CVI) was derived from ratings by, an expert panel to assess the item content and relevance. 650 population-based Chinese women completed the sunlight exposure questionnaire through telephone interview. To assess the questionnaire reliability, 94 women were re-interviewed after 2 weeks. 98.4% of the sunlight exposure questionnaire items were found to have valid CVI (>0.83). The Scree plot and the Principal Components Factor Analysis showed a two-factor construct was appropriate and no questionnaire item needed to be excluded. The questionnaire also had a good test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.59–0.93; k: 0.51–100). This sunlight exposure questionnaire was found to be adequate for measurement of life-time sunlight exposure among Hong Kong Chinese women.

Development and validation of a sunlight exposure questionnaire for urban adult Filipinos

“…The questionnaire development process drew on the existing instruments of Cargill et al [9] in Australia, Hanwell et al [8] in Italy, Humayun et al [6] in Pakistan, and Wu et al [7] in Hong Kong. Although the questionnaires served as important references, no questions were directly taken from any of these instruments, as they were all developed in countries of a different ethnicity, geography, and climate compared to the Philippines.…”

“…An extensive literature review of concepts on sunlight exposure assessment was performed and relevant questionnaires were identified, using the main keywords “sunlight,” “questionnaire,” “urban,” “vitamin D,” and “osteoporosis.” There were no restrictions on language, country, or year of publication. Based on their relevance (mainly the inclusion of different sun exposure variables and/or correlation with serum 25-OHD), the SEQs developed by Cargill et al [9] in Australia, Hanwell et al [8] in Italy, Humayun et al [6] in Pakistan, and Wu et al [7] in Hong Kong were used as references for this study. In addition, an existing conceptual framework on the attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs of urban adult Filipinos on sunlight exposure was also used (Figure 1) [11].…”

“…A major limitation in the area of VDD research is the lack of an appropriate, inexpensive, and easily-administered tool for measuring sunlight exposure [6]. Compared with other methods, questionnaires are considered to be the most cost-effective way of measuring sunlight exposure in population-based studies [7]. Of the available sunlight exposure questionnaires (SEQs), only 2 were validated in Asia (Hong Kong and Pakistan) [6,7] and only 3 were created in the context of VDD by correlating the questionnaire results with serum 25-OHD levels, showing moderate correlations [6,8,9].…”

Relationship between cumulative ultraviolet exposure and cognitive function in a rural elderly Chinese population

“…Retrospective questionnaires are another reliable and common approach to assess long-term UV exposure level. 23,24 One shortcoming of this method is that it is time consuming. Moreover, this method requires high accuracy of memory, and recall bias may have affected the results.…”

Assessing exposure of young Australian children to toxicants in the home environment using a web-based questionnaire

“…Although more detailed timeactivity data can be collected through 24-hour recalls, including online based surveys, these recalls can be burdensome for parents of young children who may have other family and work responsibilities (234). The use of monitors, such as Global Positioning Systems and accelerometers, provides more accurate data and may be potentially less burdensome for study participants (235,236). However, there are also issues with this approach, including the cost, possibility of technological issues and data analysis issues, privacy invasion and the impracticality of having very young children wear these devices (236).…”