Subhealth Risk Perception Scale: Development and Validation of a New Measure.

BACKGROUND: To develop an individual's physical subhealth risk perception scale and evaluate its reliability and validity, so as to provide a measurement tool for individual physical health risk. METHODS: A questionnaire on the perception risk of physical subhealth was developed. Using a random sampling method, 785 people in the Anhui provincial physical examination centre were selected as the research participants. Of the questionnaires returned, 770 were valid, giving an effective rate of 98%. Firstly, the Pearson correlation coefficient method was used to study the correlation of 35 items in the initial scale, and then, polychoric factor structure analysis was carried out by using the Pratt D matrix to optimize the item structure. The Cronbach'α coefficient method was used to test the internal consistency reliability, and a structural equation model was used to explore the construct validity of the scale. The discriminant validity of the scale was obtained by factor analysis. A general linear model was used to analyse the relationship between the clinical manifestations of physical subhealth and the level of risk perception, and the convergent validity of the scale was evaluated. RESULTS: All the data of 35 items were significantly correlated at the 0.01 level. The correlation coefficients between a1 and a2, a3 and a4, b1 and b2, b2 and b3, c4 and c5, c5 and c6, c6 and c7, c8 and c9, d1 and d2, d2 and d3, e5 and e6, g1 and g2, g2 and g3, and g2 and g4 were greater than 0.6. The items with correlation coefficients greater than 0.6 were reduced by a Pratt D matrix. The resulting physical subhealth risk perception scale covers five factors with a total of 18 items. The Cronbach'α coefficient of the scale was 0.889, and the Cronbach'α coefficients of the five factors F1-F5 were 0.780, 0.825, 0.801, 0.736, and 0.704, respectively. Structural equation model analysis showed that χ 2/df = 3.43, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.08, GFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.84, AGFI = 0.84, and CFI = 0.88. Factor analysis showed that factors F1-F5 had significant correlations (p < 0.01), and the correlation coefficients were less than the corresponding square root value of AVE. Based on the subhealth clinical manifestations of the participants, the general linear model was used to explore the convergent validity of the scale, and the results indicated that the scale passed the convergent validity test. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a physical subhealth risk perception scale amounting to 18 items, which includes five dimensions: health knowledge (2 items), risk perception (5 items), trust selection (4 items), information channel (4 items), and social groups (3 items). The reliability and validity of the physical subhealth risk perception scale are acceptable. Applying the scale into practice has potential to improve the overall public health level.

Association between Clinical and Ultrasonic Characteristics of Varicocele and Lower Extremity Varicose Vein in Men.

BACKGROUND: The study investigated the association between lower extremity varicose veins in men and varicocele. METHODS: A total of 100 patients who presented to the Department of Vascular Surgery in the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University with the diagnosis of lower extremity varicose veins were included in the study group. A total of 100 adults without vascular disease were included as controls. The prevalence of varicocele between the study group and the control group was compared. We compared the prevalence of varicocele and the mean diameter of spermatic veins between the patients with and without reflux in the saphenofemoral junctions. We analyzed the association between the maximum spermatic vein diameter and the maximum diameter of lower extremity varicose veins in patients who had both lower extremity varicose vein and varicocele in the study group. According to their clinic signs, patients with lower extremity varicose veins were divided into C1-C6 by clinic sign grade of Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology (CEAP), and we investigated the trend of the incidence of varicocele and the mean diameter of spermatic veins in different grades. RESULTS: The patients with lower extremity varicose veins had a statistically significant (χ2 = 20.05, P < 0.01) higher rate of varicocele when compared with controls. We compared the prevalence of varicocele and the mean diameter of spermatic veins between the patients with and without reflux in the saphenofemoral junctions and found no statistically significant differences between them (prevalence of varicocele P > 0.05, diameter P > 0.05). We found a linear correlation between the maximum spermatic vein diameter and the maximum diameter of lower extremity varicose veins in the patients who had both lower extremity varicose veins and varicocele in the study group (coefficient of rank correlation r = 0.4072, P < 0.01). The patients in the study group were classified into 6 grades by CEAP. After the analysis by trend chi-square, we found that the prevalence of varicocele had no statistical trend in different grades (χ2 = 0.8798, P > 0.05), and the mean diameter of spermatic vein also had no statistical trend in different grades (F = 1.59, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we demonstrated that the prevalence of varicocele is higher in patients with varicose veins in lower extremity than the patients without vascular diseases. The reason for the association between varicose vein in lower extremity and varicocele remains uncertain.