Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Tool "Catquest" in Odia Language

Healthcare is evolving to consider patient satisfaction along with any procedure's objective outcome. After cataract surgery, the quality of vision can be assessed by administering questionnaires on daily activities. Using such questionnaires in local languages enhances patient-doctor interaction. In this study, we aim to determine whether using a Catquest questionnaire in Odia can help better assess the quality of life in the setting of a tertiary care center in Eastern India.

This study aims to validate the use of a Catquest questionnaire among Eastern India's Odia-speaking population.

We conducted a prospective study on 40 patients planning to undergo cataract surgery in a tertiary care center in Eastern India. We collected demographic data and conducted a comprehensive ocular examination, including slit lamp examination, fundus examination, and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. We asked patients to complete a Catquest questionnaire before and six weeks after surgery. We translated the English version of the questionnaire into Odia and validated it for use in the study. Patients completed both Odia and English questionnaires on both occasions. We conducted a statistical analysis to check for agreement between the answers in both languages and to validate the questionnaire in Odia. First translation and back-translation were done in English and Odia. We prepared a final draft of the questionnaire in Odia. We determined intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values and compared the reliability of the responses of the same group of patients before and after surgery. We explored variability between answers in both languages.

The data were categorical. ICC values for various activities such as reading papers, seeing to walk on uneven ground, watching television, and preferred hobbies showed perfect reliability, with ICC = 1 both preop and postop. This indicated consistent perceptions of these activities across the two time points. Activities such as seeing prices, seeing to do needlework, reading newspapers, and shopping also showed good reliability. For reading text on television, the ICC values were -0.0588 preop. However, postop, all patients were able to watch television comfortably. Thus, there was no variability between the answers. Negative ICC preop indicated very poor reliability or inconsistency preop, which we corrected postop.

With the growing emphasis on patient-reported outcomes, both clinical and subjective parameters need to be considered for any procedure's success. In our clinical setting, the use of the Catquest questionnaire for assessing patient-reported outcomes in their day-to-day activities was beneficial. The translated version was reliable and well-applicable in the setting of the present study. As the study shows a good correlation between the original and translated versions, we can conclude that it can be incorporated in clinical practice successfully.