A new factor model for assessing the quality of life of Russian National Guard servicemen who participated in combat operations and who suffer from upper gastrointestinal diseases

Introduction. To comprehensively assess the quality of life of combat veterans with upper gastrointestinal diseases, it is necessary to focus on key indicators related to physical and mental well-being.

Aim. To conduct a comparative factor analysis of the impact of combat experience on the quality of life of military personnel with upper gastrointestinal tract pathology, using a combination of the SF-36, OQ-45, and GSRS questionnaires, to develop differentiated criteria for assessing the effectiveness of preventive and diagnostic measures in military medicine.

Materials and methods. A single-center, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted. 200 Russian National Guard servicemen with upper gastrointestinal pathologies were surveyed. The study group (combat veterans) consisted of 100 people; the control group (non-combat veterans) consisted of 100. The age range was 21 to 65 years. The survey was conducted using the following questionnaires: SF-36; OQ-45; GSRS. To select the key variables, the weight of each “Factor” was assessed using factor analysis with a factor loading coefficient > 0.7 (p < 0.05).

Results. A new 6-factor model for assessing the quality of life of military personnel was obtained, from which three “latent” factors were identified in group 1: “Distress syndrome”, “Physical condition” and “General health” with a maximum factor weight of 15.73%, 13.36% and 11.36%; in group 2 – two “Everyday role activity” and “Social functioning” with a weight of 19.99% and 11.59%. The first group showed 65.65% contribution of each “Factor” to the variance, the second – 63.77%.

Conclusions. Differences in key factors (“Distress syndrome”, “Physical condition”, “General health”) in combat participants and (“Everyday role activities”, “Social functioning”) in non-participants demonstrate a specific impact of combat stress on quality of life with a total explanatory variance of over 63%, which makes it possible to effectively use new technology to improve the diagnosis, prevention and tactics of combatant management, in particular, to conduct a survey only on key factors instead of the entire array of 3 questionnaire instruments.

1. Zotov PB, Lyubov EB, Skryabin EG, Garasheva EP. Quality of life in clinical practice. Deviantology. 2022;6(11):48–56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32878/devi.22-6-02(11)-48-56.

2. Sukhonos YuA, Nikitina TP, Sukhonos NYu, Ionova TI. Declared Quality of Life: New Prospects for Assessing Patient Quality of Life in Clinical Medicine. Kachestvennaya Klinicheskaya Praktika. 2024;(3):26–33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37489/2588-0519-2024-3-26-33.

3. Lobanov YuF, Skudarnov EV, Strozenko LA, Prokudina MP, Karakasekova MK, Pechkina KG. Quality of life as a problem in healthcare: current trends. International Journal of Applied and Basic Research. 2018;5(1):235–239. (In Russ.) Available at: https://applied-research.ru/article/view?id=12250.

4. Costa DSJ, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rutherford C, Tait MA, King MT. How is quality of life defined and assessed in published research? Qual Life Res. 2021;30(8):2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02826-0.

5. Korochanskaya NV, Durleshter VM, Serdyuk AA. Psychoemotional status in patients with duodenal ulcer disease complicated by suband decompensated stenosis. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2019;(9):38–44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31146/1682-8658-ecg169-9-38-44.

6. Zhang M, Pandolfino JE, Zhou X, Niandi T, Yuwen L, Minhu C, Yinglian X. Assessing different diagnostic tests for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network metaanalysis. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2019;12:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756284819890537.

7. Li C, Jiang K, Pan S, Tang C, Wang K. A global perspective on smoking’s impact on peptic ulcer disease: DALY trends and projections. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1550045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1550045.

8. Weijers A, Rasing S, Creemers D, Vermulst A, Schellekens AFA, Westerhof GJ. The relationship between depressive symptoms, general psychopathology, and well-being in patients with major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychol. 2021;77(6):1472–1486. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23083.

9. Kasturi S, Szymonifka J, Burket JC, Berman, JR, Kirou KA, Levine AB et al. Feasibility, Validity, and Reliability of the 10-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health Short Form in Outpatients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(3):397–404. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.170590.

10. Eftekhari A, Masjedi Arani A, Bakhtiari M, Sadeghi A, Kianimoghadam AS, Zadehparizi R. Efficacy of emotion regulation training on pain intensity and life quality in patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2023;16(4):394–400. https://doi.org/10.22037/ghfbb.v16i4.2694.

11. Lee SW, Lee TY, Lien HC, Yeh HZ, Chang CS, Ko CW. The risk factors and quality of life in patients with overlapping functional dyspepsia or peptic ulcer disease with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gut Liver. 2014;8(2):160–164. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl.2014.8.2.160.

12. Isshi K, Furuhashi H, Koizumi A, Nakada K. Effects of coexisting upper gastrointestinal symptoms on daily life and quality of life in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Esophagus. 2021;18(3):684–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-020-00801-1.

13. Nikishina SS, Zubtsov YuN, Filina IA. Analysis of patients with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract quality of lifen. Natural Resources of the Earth and Environmental Protection. 2023;4(1):24–29. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/mkriao.

14. Shklyaev AE, Gorbunov YuV. Use of specific and nonspecific questionnaires to assess the quality of life of patients with functional bowel pathology. Russian Archive of Internal Medicine. 2016;(4):53–57. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20514/2226-6704-2016-6-4-53-57.

15. Turan N, Aşt TA, Kaya N. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2017;40(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000177.

16. Dong JQ, Pan YY, Shang YL, Guo CC, Shi YQ, Zhu X et al. The relationships between functional gastrointestinal diseases and psychological factors, diet and lifestyles: a network analysis. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2022;61(12):1336–1342. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112138-20220111-00036.

17. Barberio B, Pinto-Sanchez MI, Bercik P, Sood R, Savarino EV, Moayyedi P et al. Derivation and validation of a novel method to subgroup patients with functional dyspepsia: beyond upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021;53(2):253–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16184.

18. Chernousov AF, Khorobrykh TV, Vetshev FP, Ionova TI, Mugadzaveta D, Osminin SV, Nikitina TP. Quality of life of patients with complicated refluxesophagitis followed antireflux surgery. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2017;(12):17–27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia20171217-27.

19. Pontone S, Ridola L, Marianetti M, Pontone P, Petrarca L, Mina C et al. Endoscopic findings and psychometric abnormalities: what is the relationship in upper endoscopic outpatients? Clin Ter. 2015;166(6):238–243. https://doi.org/10.7417/CT.2015.1894.

20. García-Sánchez E, Santamaría-Peláez M, Benito Figuerola E, Carballo García MJ, Chico Hernando M, García García JM et al. Comparison of SF-36 and RAND-36 in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Reliability Study. J Clin Med. 2024;13(20):6106. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13206106.

21. Ushaeva LA, Zavyalov DV, Shubin LB. Assessment of the prevalence of gastritis, gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer in servicemen of the Russian Guard. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy. 2024;26(2):259–266. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17816/brmma625308.

22. Ushaeva LA, Zavyalov DV, Shubin LB. Clinical aspects of upper gastrointestinal tract pathology in military personnel of the North Caucasus District of the Russian Guard participating in combat operations. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy. 2024;43(3):243–249. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17816/rmmar631338.

23. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.

24. Ware JE. Improved Items for Estimating SF-36 Profile and Summary Component Scores: Construction and Validation of an 8-Item QOL General (QGEN) Survey. Med Care. 2025;63(4):300–310. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002122.

25. Machado PP, Fassnacht DB. The Portuguese version of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45): Normative data, reliability, and clinical significance cut-offs scores. Psychol Psychother. 2015;88(4):427–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12048.

26. Beke M, Burns AM, Weir S, Solch RJ, Judkins TC, Nieves C Jr, LangkampHenken B. Validation of a novel quality of life questionnaire: the Digestion-associated Quality of Life Questionnaire (DQLQ). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01956-4.

27. Kazarin DD, Shklyaev AE, Bolkiseva PS, Petrova EV Application of the specific GSRS questionnaire for differential diagnosis of digestive system diseases. Siberian Journal of Life Sciences and Agriculture. 2022;14(1):163–180. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.12731/2658-6649-2022-14-1-163-180.

28. Tavakol M, Wetzel A. Factor Analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ. 2020;11:245–247. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a.

29. Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U, Hernández-Dorado A, Muñiz J. Psicothema. 2022;34(1):7–17. doi:10.7334/psicothema2021.456.

30. Benasi G, Fava GA, Rafanelli C. Kellner’s Symptom Questionnaire, a Highly Sensitive Patient-Reported Outcome Measure: Systematic Review of Clinimetric Properties. Psychother Psychosom. 2020;89(2):74–89. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506110.