Evidence Hub

Validation of the IBD-Control Questionnaire across different sociodemographic and clinical subgroups: secondary analysis of a nationwide electronic survey

Gebeyehu GG, Taylor F, Dobson L, Cummings JRF, Bloom S, Kennedy NA, Christiansen P, Bodger K

Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2024

40 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The IBD-Control Questionnaire is a simple, generic measure of patient-perceived disease control used increasingly in clinical practice and research. We aimed to address knowledge gaps in its psychometric performance, to ensure that it can be used with confidence in a variety of contexts.

METHODS: We analysed 7341 responses to the IBD Registry COVID-19 survey, sent to 40 911 patients who completed an online self-assessment tool during the pandemic. Questions covered demographics, comorbidities, inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] sub-type, and IBD-Control Questionnaire and symptom scores [CD-PRO2 or UC-PRO2]. Psychometric properties of IBD-Control-8 were tested overall and within subgroups (Crohn's disease [CD], ulcerative colitis [UC] and IBD unclassified; male and female; ≤65 and >65 years; number of co-morbidities; deprivation status).

RESULTS: Internal consistency was very strong overall [α: 0.84, ω: 0.89] and for each subgroup [α range: 0.81-0.85; ω: 0.86-0.90]. Construct validity was demonstrated by moderate correlation of each item with global rating [VAS] [rs range: 0.47-0.65], strong correlation between IBD-Control-8 score and VAS [rs = 0.74], moderate-to-strong with PRO2 scores [CD: rs = -0.718; UC: rs = -0.602] and significantly higher IBD-Control-8 scores for PRO2-remission vs PRO2-active, consistent across subgroups. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated a two-factor model (items loading onto 'Health-related Quality of Life' [HRQoL]…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 40 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free