Introduction: This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the newly developed chronic constipation-therapeutic efficacy and satisfaction test (CC-TEST) among patients with chronic constipation. Methods: Japanese patients with moderate or severe chronic constipation underwent a 4-week remedy. The baseline, 2-week, and 4-week assessments included the CC-TEST, Constipation Scoring System (CSS), Medical Outcome Study Short Form-8 Health Survey (SF-8), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The CC-TEST comprises three domains: (1) symptoms; chronic constipation symptom severity (seven items), defecation status (five items), (2) impact for daily life; dissatisfaction with daily life level (DS; four items), and (3) therapeutic response; therapeutic efficacy measured by patients and medication compliance (four items). Results: Of 201 eligible patients at baseline, 110 completed the 4-week treatment and the survey responses. Cronbach’s α values for the stool, defecation, and abdominal symptom subscales, as well as the total symptom score and DS subscale, showed good internal consistency reliability (0.72–0.80). Pearson’s r for comparisons between corresponding items (CC-TEST symptoms with CSS, and CC-TEST DS with SF-8 physical and mental component summary scores) was significant. After 4 weeks, scores for symptoms, defecation status, and DS items/subscales notably decreased, with a significant effect size (p < 0.005, Cohen’s d; 0.30–1.16). Statistically significant differences emerged between treatment responders and nonresponders using the three responder definitions, in changes in scores for most CC-TEST symptoms, defecation status, and DS items/subscales (p < 0.05). Conclusion: CC-TEST demonstrates commendable reliability, convergent and known-group validity, and responsiveness to treatment effects. As a simple, comprehensive, and versatile patient-reported outcome measure, CC-TEST may be well suited for clinical trials and primary care of Japanese patients with chronic constipation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakada et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: