Endometriosis (EMS) is a chronic condition primarily characterized by pain and infertility, significantly affecting the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of patients. The primary goal of EMS treatment is to improve patients’ quality of life (QoL). However, due to cultural, family, and systemic differences between China and Western countries, the current Chinese version of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) fails to fully capture the specific needs of EMS patients in China. Therefore, this study aimed to revise the Chinese version of the EHP-30 to better align with the characteristics of EMS patients in China, with a focus on evaluating and improving QoL. The revision process was based on a literature review, qualitative interviews with EMS patients, and expert consultations. The newly revised Chinese version of the EHP-30 was tested for reliability and validity through convenience sampling, involving 228 valid questionnaire responses. Statistical methods including item analysis, reliability testing (Cronbach alpha coefficient and retest reliability), and validity testing (structural validity, correlation validity, and content validity) were employed to evaluate the revised scale. The item analysis led to the exclusion of items that did not meet statistical criteria. Reliability testing demonstrated good consistency and stability, with Cronbach alpha coefficient ≥ 0.70 and retest reliability ≥ 0.70. The correlation coefficient for validity was found to range from 0.4 to 0.8. The final scale, the eHealth Literacy Scale for EMS patients, consists of 38 items across 4 dimensions, with higher scores correlating to a higher QoL for EMS patients. The revised Chinese version of the EHP-30 scale provides a scientifically validated tool to assess the impact of EMS on patients’ lives. This scale offers insights into patients’ QoL and can help guide targeted medical interventions. In the long term, this study sets the foundation for developing personalized care strategies for EMS patients in China.
Shi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: