Logo

Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment

Author(s):
Farzin PouraghajanFarzin PouraghajanFarzin Pouraghajan ORCID1, Robabeh SoleimaniRobabeh SoleimaniRobabeh Soleimani ORCID1, Homa ZarrabiHoma ZarrabiHoma Zarrabi ORCID1, Fatemeh Eslamdoust-SiahestalkhiFatemeh Eslamdoust-SiahestalkhiFatemeh Eslamdoust-Siahestalkhi ORCID1, Mohammad Hassan NovinMohammad Hassan NovinMohammad Hassan Novin ORCID1,*
1Department of Psychiatry, Kavosh Cognitive Behavior Sciences and Addiction Research Center, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

IJ Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences:Vol. In Press, issue In Press; e143562
Published online:Jul 06, 2025
Article type:Research Article
Received:Dec 02, 2023
Accepted:Jun 08, 2025
How to Cite:Pouraghajan F, Soleimani R, Zarrabi H, Eslamdoust-Siahestalkhi F, Novin M H. Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment.Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci.2025;In Press(In Press):e143562.https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs-143562.

Abstract

Background:

Quality of life (QoL) is increasingly recognized as a significant component in the monitoring of clinical interventions. However, no specific tool is available in the Persian language to assess the QoL in patients treated with opioid agonists.

Objectives:

To systematically translate the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving opioid substitution treatment quality-of-life (OSTQOL) into Persian and assess the validity and reliability of the translated version.

Methods:

An analytical cross-sectional study was carried out on 380 adult males receiving opioid substitution treatment (OST) at substance abuse treatment centers in the city of Rasht, Iran, in the year 2021. The reliability of the Persian version of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald’s Omega, and test-retest reliability. Content validity was evaluated by a panel of experts, and structural validity was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Results:

The fit indices obtained in the CFA were acceptable (CMIN/DF = 2.34, GFI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.06, NFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97). The Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients for the tool, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and test-retest coefficient were 0.926, 0.918, 0.943, and 0.996, respectively, indicating excellent reliability of the instrument.

Conclusions:

The Persian version of the OSTQOL is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the QoL of patients undergoing OST. Therefore, QoL researchers will be able to specifically measure QoL among patients receiving opioid agonists.

1. Background

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are chronic and often recurring disorders that make individuals susceptible to serious problems such as AIDS, hepatitis, and other chronic conditions, ultimately leading to a reduced quality of life (QoL) (1). Additionally, this disorder is influenced by a combination of biological, social, psychological, and cultural factors (2, 3), and its high comorbidity with psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and personality disorders has severe effects on the QoL and the health of patients (4-7). Over time, individuals who use opioids may suffer from intense psychological distress and a diminished QoL (8). Dissatisfaction with life is more prevalent among opioid-dependent individuals compared to the general population (9).

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) is an evidence-based intervention for opioid dependence that improves patients' health and reduces mortality (10). One of the harm reduction treatment options is maintenance treatment with opioid agonists, where the patient discontinues the use of the illicit drug and instead uses medications like methadone, buprenorphine, and so on (11). Considering the psychological aspects of addiction, treatment plays a crucial role in reducing relapse, dropout rates, and increasing tolerance levels for abstinence, thereby improving the psychological symptoms that drive individuals towards substance use during treatment. Among the important factors in this regard is the focus on the QoL of individuals undergoing agonist maintenance treatment (12). Opioid replacement therapy improves the QoL in patients compared to those not receiving treatment (13). Since the majority of patients remain on OST indefinitely, it can be argued that improving the mental well-being and QoL of patients during OST should be a primary goal of patient care (14).

Over the past three decades, attention to QoL as a significant factor in evaluating treatment outcomes and treatment effectiveness in both physical and mental illnesses has increased (15). The World Health Organization (WHO) defines QoL as “an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value system in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns” (16).

The QoL is significantly compromised among substance users (17) and particularly among opioid-dependent individuals (18). It provides an empirical measure of how individuals function across various life domains and assesses the impact of treatment on the disease burden associated with SUDs (19). Broadly, there are two types of questionnaires for assessing QoL. Generic tools, such as the WHOQOL, Duke Health Profile, and various QoL measures, are designed for cross-population comparisons, while disease-specific tools focus on aspects relevant to particular populations, such as opioid-dependent individuals (20, 21).

The opioid substitution treatment quality-of-life (OSTQOL) Questionnaire, developed by Strada et al. at the Addiction Research Center of the University of Hamburg, Germany, in 2017, is the only instrument in addiction science that addresses specific QoL domains for patients undergoing opioid agonist treatment. This 38-item questionnaire covers personal development, mental distress, social contacts, material well-being, OST, and discrimination (14). This instrument, unique both nationally and internationally, provides researchers with a valuable and efficient tool to evaluate QoL in this population. Its lack of comparable counterparts highlights the critical need it fulfills, especially for researchers in the country aiming to understand and improve life quality among individuals undergoing opioid agonist treatment.

2. Objectives

Considering that there are approximately 7,029 substance abuse treatment clinics in Iran (22), there is no instrument in the Persian language to assess the QoL of patients undergoing agonist maintenance treatment during their treatment. This questionnaire will assist healthcare providers and policymakers in evaluating therapeutic interventions. Given the large number of patients receiving agonist treatment and the lack of information about their QoL during treatment, the need for an appropriate tool to assess the QoL in this group is evident. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the OSTQOL Questionnaire.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design

This study employed an analytical cross-sectional design. The study population consisted of all adult males undergoing OST who attended substance abuse treatment centers in the city of Rasht, Iran, in the year 2021. Eight substance abuse treatment centers from the five districts of the Rasht municipality were randomly selected. Approximately 50 individuals were then conveniently selected and included in the study from each center. After obtaining ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Guilan University of Medical Sciences (ethical code IR.GUMS.REC.1399.495) and obtaining informed consent from the patients, the current research was conducted.

The inclusion criteria for the study were receiving agonist treatment and a willingness to participate in the research. The exclusion criteria included the presence of serious psychiatric illnesses or chronic medical illnesses based on the individual's self-report and clinical interviews conducted by the study's first author. Considering that ten participants are required for each questionnaire item (23), and our study instrument contains 38 items, the sample size for this study was determined to be 380 individuals (24).

The data were analyzed using SPSS version 22 and LISREL software version 8.80. Since confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in this study was conducted using the LISREL software, which does not perform the analysis in the presence of missing data, a double-check was performed both during the questionnaire collection phase and the data entry phase.

3.2. Translation

In this study, after obtaining permission from the original tool's developer and making the necessary coordination, the OSTQOL Questionnaire was translated through forward and backward translation methods by experts proficient in both the Persian and English languages. Initially, the main questionnaire was translated from the original language to Persian by two translators familiar with both Persian and English. Then, the two initial translations were combined and transformed into a single translation. In the next step, the back-translation of the final translated version from Persian to the original language was performed by a bilingual translator proficient in both Persian and English. The final translated English version was compared to the original version.

3.3. Content Validity

To assess the validity, a panel of experts was formed. This panel included three psychiatrists, a Ph.D. in statistics, two psychologists (one holds a Master's degree in Clinical Psychology with 15 years of experience in a psychiatric hospital, and the other has a Ph.D. in Psychology with over 20 years of therapeutic experience), two Ph.D. holders in addiction studies, and a general practitioner with experience in addiction treatment. This group evaluated the translated questionnaire items based on relevance, clarity, and simplicity, and assigned scores accordingly. In this manner, the questionnaire was assessed for grammar, sentence structure, and specificity. Each expert expressed their opinion on each item using a Likert scale ranging from irrelevant, unclear, and not fluent to completely relevant, clear, and fluent in terms of relevance, clarity, and simplicity of the tool. Ultimately, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was determined. A value equal to or higher than 0.80 was considered acceptable (25). For content validity ratio (CVR), the group expressed their opinions on the necessity of each item on a three-point Likert scale. There were 9 experts, and based on the Lawshe table, items with a CVR equal to or greater than 0.78 were deemed acceptable (26).

3.4. Face Validity

A group of twenty study participants with different age conditions and educational levels were selected to evaluate the face validity of the questionnaire items. Each item was read aloud to each participant, and their comments regarding the clarity of the questionnaire's questions, difficulty in understanding them, and relevance to the questionnaire's purpose were noted. Ultimately, their feedback was incorporated into the questionnaire.

3.5. Structural Validity

To determine the structural validity of the Persian version of the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OSTQOL, CFA was performed using LISREL 8.80 software.

3.6. Reliability

Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients were used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. For each subscale of the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients were calculated separately, and values above 0.70 were considered acceptable (27). To evaluate the stability of the questionnaire, the test-retest method with the measurement of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used. Thirty participants in the OSTQOL Questionnaire completed it again after a 15-day interval. An ICC of 0.40 and above is considered acceptable (23).

3.7. Instrument

3.7.1. The Opioid Substitution Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire

The OSTQOL Questionnaire was developed by Strada et al. in 2017. The initial version of this questionnaire consisted of 82 items, and the final version contains 38 items, comprising 6 subscales: Personal development (10 items), mental distress (9 items), social contacts (6 items), material well-being (3 items), OST (6 items), and discrimination (4 items). The scoring for this scale is based on a 5-point Likert scale (0: Does not apply to me at all, 1: Applies to me to some extent, 2: Applies to me to a moderate extent, 3: Applies to me to a considerable extent, 4: Applies to me to a great extent). According to the results reported by the developers of this questionnaire, the internal consistency reliability of its subscales was acceptable, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.75 to 0.88. Additionally, the instrument demonstrated good and acceptable discriminant validity and convergent validity (14).

3.7.2. The Researcher-Made Questionnaire

The Researcher-Made Questionnaire includes demographic characteristics of participants and substance use profiles.

4. Results

This study was conducted on 380 adult males receiving OST. The participants' mean age was 44.2 ± 11.3 years. Among the study sample, 74.7% were undergoing methadone treatment, 18.2% were receiving tincture of opium treatment, and 6.8% were undergoing treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone, a partial agonist.

4.1. Content Validity

The CVR was calculated for all items of the questionnaire, and all values were greater than 0.78, indicating acceptability. Additionally, the CVR Scale was calculated to be 0.94, which is acceptable. The CVI revealed that items 1, 8, 9, 10, 29, and 34 had scores less than 0.80 for simplicity before modification, but after receiving feedback from experts in the second expert panel session, these scores were improved to a range of 0.90 to 1. Furthermore, items 9, 10, and 29 had scores less than 0.80 for relevancy but were enhanced to a score of 1 after expert panel feedback. Lastly, items 9, 10, 14, 15, 29, and 34 had scores less than 0.80 for clarity but were improved to a score of 1 after expert panel feedback. Content Validity Index-Scale, after revising items for simplicity, relevancy, and clarity, ranged between 0.89 and 0.95, which is above 0.8 and therefore acceptable and satisfactory.

4.2. Structural Validity

To examine the factor structure of the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OST, a CFA was conducted. In order to refine the model, items with t-values between 1.96 and -1.96 should be removed from the model. Based on the results obtained, none of the items were removed from the model. The results of model fit indices for the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OST are presented in Table 1. According to the results, the six-factor model of the questionnaire in the study group demonstrates an acceptable fit. In other words, the fit indices indicate that the collected empirical data support the theoretical model.

Table 1.Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment
IndexPersian EquivalentSpecified ModelAcceptable Fit Range
CMIN/DFStandardized chi-square2.34< 3
GFIGoodness of Fit Index0.82> 0.90
AGFIAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index0.8> 0.90
RMRRoot mean square residual0.087< 0.05
RMSEARoot mean square error of approximation0.06< 0.05
NFINormed Fit Index0.95> 0.90
CFIComparative Fit Index0.97> 0.90
IFIIncremental Fit Index0.97> 0.90
PNFIParsimonious Normed Fit Index0.88> 0.50

Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment

The CFA was used to examine the factor structure of the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving opioid maintenance treatment. To modify the model, questions with t-values between -1.96 and +1.96 had to be removed. The findings in Table 2 indicate that none of the questions were removed from the model.

Table 2.Standardized Factor Loading, t-Values, and R2 for Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Items
ItemsFactor LoadingtR2
181.012.1866.0
283.085.2470.0
384.028.1970.0
483.023.1969.0
583.024.1969.0
681.046.1865.0
766.013.1444.0
879.067.1762.0
973.015.1654.0
1059.021.1235.0
1176.023.1557.0
1278.065.2161.0
1380.098.1564.0
1483.063.1669.0
1581.017.1665.0
1668.026.1346.0
1770.069.1349.0
1875.088.1456.0
1966.095.1244.0
2082.078.1667.0
2176.095.1659.0
2287.053.2076.0
2379.067.1762.0
2485.058.1972.0
2582.042.1668.0
2684.082.1670.0
2790.013.1881.0
2843.029.819.0
2982.014.2267.0
3082.014.2267.0
3179.039.1763.0
3287.047.1975.0
3381.081.1766.0
3483.052.1869.0
3536.069.513.0
3694.029.589.0
3760.034.636.0
3855.013.630.0

Standardized Factor Loading, t-Values, and R2 for Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Items

The measurement model for the items of the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OST was presented using a standard CFA model, as shown in Figure 1.

Measurement model of the Quality-of-Life (QoL) Questionnaire in patients receiving opioid substitution treatment (OST) based on the six-factor model, in standard estimation using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); PD, personal development; MD, mental distress; SC, social contacts; MW, material wellbeing; D, discrimination.
Figure 1.

Measurement model of the Quality-of-Life (QoL) Questionnaire in patients receiving opioid substitution treatment (OST) based on the six-factor model, in standard estimation using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); PD, personal development; MD, mental distress; SC, social contacts; MW, material wellbeing; D, discrimination.

4.3. Reliability

The internal consistency of the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OST was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and McDonald’s Omega Coefficient, resulting in values of 0.926 and 0.918, respectively, indicating excellent stability. Then, Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s Omega Coefficients were calculated for each of the factors, and the coefficients obtained demonstrated adequate stability in all domains (Table 3).

Table 3.Calculation of Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient and McDonald’s Omega Coefficient for Dimensions and Total of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment.
DimensionsCronbach's Alpha CoefficientMcDonald’s Omega Coefficient
Personal development0.9350.935
Mental distress0.9240.924
Social contacts0.9230.923
Material well-being0.6120.618
OST0.9320.932
Discrimination0.6840.680
Total0.9260.918

Calculation of Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient and McDonald’s Omega Coefficient for Dimensions and Total of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment.

To determine the questionnaire's stability in terms of reproducibility, the ICC and test-retest reliability coefficient were used. The findings indicated that the questionnaire demonstrated excellent stability. The ICC value for the questionnaire was 0.943, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Additionally, the test-retest reliability coefficient for the research sample was 0.996 (Table 4).

Table 4.Calculation of Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Test-Retest Reliability Coefficient for the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment in Research Samples (N = 30).
QuestionnaireTest-Retest CoefficientICC95% Confidence Interval for ICCP-Value
Lower LimitUpper Limit
QoL0.9960.9430.7720.986< 0.001

Calculation of Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Test-Retest Reliability Coefficient for the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment in Research Samples (N = 30).

5. Discussion

This study aimed to systematically translate the OSTQOL Questionnaire into Persian and assess the validity and reliability of the translated version. The questionnaire was translated using the standard forward-backward translation method (28), and the results obtained in the content validity phase indicated that the tool had good content validity and was well understood by both expert groups and patients receiving agonist treatment.

To investigate the factor structure of the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OST, CFA was employed. Fit indices such as χ2/df, GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, NFI, CFI, and IFI indicated that all of them were acceptable for the instrument. Despite the RMR value (0.087) exceeding the ideal < 0.05 threshold, all key global fit indices (e.g., CFI, RMSEA, NFI, CFI, GFI) indicate acceptable model fit. Since item variances are consistent and other indices do not suggest misfit, the elevated RMR likely reflects minor residual discrepancies or model complexity, rather than serious model misspecification.

Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s Omega Coefficients were used to assess internal consistency for the QoL Questionnaire in patients receiving OST, and the results indicated that the coefficients were close to or greater than 0.70 (0.61 - 0.93) for both the overall instrument and all its subscales, demonstrating desirable internal consistency. The resemblance between apha and Omega indicates that the assumption of tau-equivalence (equal contributions of items to the latent construct) is likely met. In other words, all items in the scale or subscales have similar factor loadings on the latent variable (29, 30), and Cronbach’s alpha is a valid estimate of reliability in this case.

In Strada et al.'s study (14), Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged between 0.75 and 0.88, with the lowest value attributed to the material well-being factor. Similarly, in the present study, this factor also exhibited the lowest Cronbach's alpha coefficient. To determine the questionnaire's stability in terms of reproducibility, the ICC and test-retest reliability were employed. The findings demonstrated that the questionnaire exhibited excellent stability.

This study is, to date, the only one that has translated this tool into Persian while also evaluating its validity and reliability. Therefore, no similar example is found in the scientific literature, making comparisons with similar studies unfeasible. However, some research in the field of addiction has utilized this tool to examine primary outcomes, and several studies currently underway employ it as a fundamental and core instrument (31-34).

However, it is worth noting a limitation of this study. All participants in this study were male, which was partly due to the limited number of treatment-seeking women for SUD due to social stigma. Additionally, since this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was associated with more restrictions on patient referrals. As a result, the generalizability of the questionnaire’s psychometric properties to female populations is limited. Future studies should validate the instrument among females to ensure its applicability across sexes.

5.1. Conclusions

Based on the findings of the current research, the OSTQOL Questionnaire demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability for individuals undergoing OST. This instrument serves as an accessible and user-friendly tool for completion in questionnaire format, utilizing the language of the patients. It transforms it into a promising tool not only for research purposes but also for routine patient care. The OSTQOL can be employed for monitoring the QoL of patients and evaluating new interventions. Furthermore, it can inform researchers, healthcare providers, and policymakers about the needs of patients, serving as motivation for the development of novel interventions to enhance the QoL.

Footnotes

References

  • 1.
    Karow A, Reimer J, Schafer I, Krausz M, Haasen C, Verthein U. Quality of life under maintenance treatment with heroin versus methadone in patients with opioid dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;112(3):209-15. [PubMed ID: 20728288]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.06.009.
  • 2.
    Prom-Wormley EC, Ebejer J, Dick DM, Bowers MS. The genetic epidemiology of substance use disorder: A review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;180:241-59. [PubMed ID: 28938182]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5911369]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.06.040.
  • 3.
    Amaro H, Sanchez M, Bautista T, Cox R. Social vulnerabilities for substance use: Stressors, socially toxic environments, and discrimination and racism. Neuropharmacology. 2021;188:108518. [PubMed ID: 33716076]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8126433]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108518.
  • 4.
    Mohamed II, Ahmad HEK, Hassaan SH, Hassan SM. Assessment of anxiety and depression among substance use disorder patients: a case-control study. Middle East Current Psychiatry. 2020;27:1-8.
  • 5.
    Hunt GE, Malhi GS, Lai HMX, Cleary M. Prevalence of comorbid substance use in major depressive disorder in community and clinical settings, 1990-2019: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;266:288-304. [PubMed ID: 32056890]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.141.
  • 6.
    Parmar A, Kaloiya G. Comorbidity of Personality Disorder among Substance Use Disorder Patients: A Narrative Review. Indian J Psychol Med. 2018;40(6):517-27. [PubMed ID: 30533947]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6241194]. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_164_18.
  • 7.
    Fassino S, Daga GA, Delsedime N, Rogna L, Boggio S. Quality of life and personality disorders in heroin abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;76(1):73-80. [PubMed ID: 15380291]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.04.005.
  • 8.
    Pant SB, Thapa SB, Howard J, Ojha SP, Lien L. Psychological Distress and Quality of Life Among Opioid Substitution Therapy Participants with Histories of Injecting and Non-Injecting: A Cross-Sectional Study in Kathmandu, Nepal. Res Square. 2022;Preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1459979/v1.
  • 9.
    Luty J, Arokiadass SM. Satisfaction with life and opioid dependence. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008;3:2. [PubMed ID: 18226241]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC2259341]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-3-2.
  • 10.
    Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(2). CD002207. [PubMed ID: 24500948]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10617756]. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002207.pub4.
  • 11.
    Hallinan R, Byrne A, Agho K, McMahon C, Tynan P, Attia J. Erectile dysfunction in men receiving methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment. J Sex Med. 2008;5(3):684-92. [PubMed ID: 18093096]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00702.x.
  • 12.
    Dehghani A, Rezaei Dehnavi S. [The effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy on quality of life among patients under MMT]. Horizon Med Sci. 2018;24(3):246-52. FA.
  • 13.
    Guillery SPE, Hellweg R, Kronenberg G, Bohr U, Kunte H, Enge S. Quality of Life in Opioid Replacement Therapy: A Naturalistic Cross-Sectional Comparison of Methadone/Levomethadone, Buprenorphine, and Diamorphine Patients. Eur Addict Res. 2021;27(5):371-80. [PubMed ID: 33784698]. https://doi.org/10.1159/000514192.
  • 14.
    Strada L, Franke GH, Schulte B, Reimer J, Verthein U. Development of OSTQOL: A Measure of Quality of Life for Patients in Opioid Substitution Treatment. Eur Addict Res. 2017;23(5):238-48. [PubMed ID: 29161720]. https://doi.org/10.1159/000484239.
  • 15.
    Momeni F, Moshtagh N, Pourshahbaz A. Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral group therapy on craving, depression & anxiety among the opiate abusers under MMT. Iranian Rehabil J. 2010;8(1):19-23.
  • 16.
    Razmpush M, Ramezani K, Maredpoor A, Koulivand PH. [The Effect of Acceptance and Commitment Training on Quality of Life and Resilience of Nurses]. Neuroscience J Shefaye Khatam. 2019;7(1):62-51. FA. https://doi.org/10.29252/shefa.7.1.62.
  • 17.
    Senbanjo R, Wolff K, Marshall J. Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with reduced quality of life among methadone patients. Addiction. 2007;102(2):257-63. [PubMed ID: 17222280]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01683.x.
  • 18.
    Giri OP, Srivastava M, Shankar R. Quality of life and health of opioid-dependent subjects in India. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2014;5(4):363-8. [PubMed ID: 25288838]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4173233]. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.139986.
  • 19.
    Donovan D, Mattson ME, Cisler RA, Longabaugh R, Zweben A. Quality of life as an outcome measure in alcoholism treatment research. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2005;(15):119-39. discussion 92-3. [PubMed ID: 16223064]. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2005.s15.119.
  • 20.
    Ghasemi SR, Rjabi Gilan N, Reshadat S. [The Survey of Health-Related Quality of Life in Kermanshah Rural Women and Some Related Factors]. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2014;23(109):173-81. FA.
  • 21.
    Dietze P, Stoove M, Miller P, Kinner S, Bruno R, Alati R, et al. The self-reported personal wellbeing of a sample of Australian injecting drug users. Addiction. 2010;105(12):2141-8. [PubMed ID: 20854337]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03090.x.
  • 22.
    Ekhtiari H, Noroozi A, Farhoudian A, Radfar SR, Hajebi A, Sefatian S, et al. The evolution of addiction treatment and harm reduction programs in Iran: a chaotic response or a synergistic diversity? Addiction. 2020;115(7):1395-403. [PubMed ID: 31737965]. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14905.
  • 23.
    Plichta SB, Kelvin EA, Munro BH. Munro's statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health; 2013.
  • 24.
    Hair Jr JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1995.
  • 25.
    Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. [PubMed ID: 16977646]. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147.
  • 26.
    Lawshe CH. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity1. Personnel Psychology. 2006;28(4):563-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
  • 27.
    McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23(3):412-33. [PubMed ID: 28557467]. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144.
  • 28.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91. [PubMed ID: 11124735]. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
  • 29.
    Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Commun Methods Measures. 2020;14(1):1-24.
  • 30.
    McDonald RP. Test Theory. London, United Kingdom: Psychology Press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087.
  • 31.
    Vorberg F, Reimer J, Verthein U. Feasibility and Short-Term Effects of Low-Threshold Opioid Substitution Treatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hamburg, Germany. Eur Addict Res. 2023;29(1):44-51. [PubMed ID: 36535264]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9808886]. https://doi.org/10.1159/000527826.
  • 32.
    Schulte B, Lehmann K, Schmidt CS, Ruhling E, Weber B, Schafer I, et al. Addiction Recovery Among Opioid-Dependent Patients Treated With Injectable Subcutaneous Depot Buprenorphine: Study Protocol of a Non-randomized Prospective Observational Study (ARIDE). Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:580863. [PubMed ID: 33363483]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7752950]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.580863.
  • 33.
    Lintzeris N, Dunlop AJ, Haber PS, Lubman DI, Graham R, Hutchinson S, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes of Treatment of Opioid Dependence With Weekly and Monthly Subcutaneous Depot vs Daily Sublingual Buprenorphine: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(5). e219041. [PubMed ID: 33970256]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8111483]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.9041.
  • 34.
    Marsden J, Kelleher M, Hoare Z, Hughes D, Bisla J, Cape A, et al. Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone. Trials. 2022;23(1):697. [PubMed ID: 35986418]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9389497]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06595-0.

Crossmark
Crossmark
Checking
Share on
Cited by
Metrics

Purchasing Reprints

  • Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) handles bulk orders for article reprints for Brieflands. To place an order for reprints, please click here (   https://www.copyright.com/landing/reprintsinquiryform/ ). Clicking this link will bring you to a CCC request form where you can provide the details of your order. Once complete, please click the ‘Submit Request’ button and CCC’s Reprints Services team will generate a quote for your review.
Search Relations

Author(s):

Related Articles