OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to (1) Address issues related to selecting a quality of life (QOL) measuring tool; and (2) Present data from a pilot test comparing 3 QOL tools (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36], the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire [LHFQ], and a visual analogue scale). DESIGN: Descriptive comparative. SETTING: A Southern university-affiliated tertiary medical center outpatient heart failure clinic. PATIENTS: Thirty adults, randomly selected from those treated in a multidisciplinary, nurse practitioner-managed heart failure clinic. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found among the global or broader measures of QOL (visual analog scale and LHFQ Total score) and the component scores (LHFQ Emotional, LHFQ Physical, SF-36 Mental [MCS], and SF-36 Physical [PCS]), with the only exception being that of the LHFQ Total and the SF-36 PCS. Mental and physical components of QOL were not related within the SF-36 or between the SF-36 PCS and the LHFQ Emotional score. However, the emotional and physical scores were highly and significantly related within the LHFQ and between the SF-36 MCS and the LHFQ Physical score. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 was better able to differentiate physical and emotional aspects of QOL in this sample. The LHFQ subscales may be less useful in QOL assessment than the total score.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to (1) Address issues related to selecting a quality of life (QOL) measuring tool; and (2) Present data from a pilot test comparing 3 QOL tools (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36], the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire [LHFQ], and a visual analogue scale). DESIGN: Descriptive comparative. SETTING: A Southern university-affiliated tertiary medical center outpatientheart failure clinic. PATIENTS: Thirty adults, randomly selected from those treated in a multidisciplinary, nurse practitioner-managed heart failure clinic. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found among the global or broader measures of QOL (visual analog scale and LHFQ Total score) and the component scores (LHFQ Emotional, LHFQ Physical, SF-36 Mental [MCS], and SF-36 Physical [PCS]), with the only exception being that of the LHFQ Total and the SF-36 PCS. Mental and physical components of QOL were not related within the SF-36 or between the SF-36 PCS and the LHFQ Emotional score. However, the emotional and physical scores were highly and significantly related within the LHFQ and between the SF-36 MCS and the LHFQ Physical score. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 was better able to differentiate physical and emotional aspects of QOL in this sample. The LHFQ subscales may be less useful in QOL assessment than the total score.
Authors: J Lawrence Marsh; Todd McKinley; Douglas Dirschl; Andrew Pick; Geoffrey Haft; Donald D Anderson; Thomas Brown Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Phillip A Gribble; Eamonn Delahunt; Christopher M Bleakley; Brian Caulfield; Carrie L Docherty; Daniel Tik-Pui Fong; François Fourchet; Jay Hertel; Claire E Hiller; Thomas W Kaminski; Patrick O McKeon; Kathryn M Refshauge; Philip van der Wees; William Vicenzino; Erik A Wikstrom Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 2.860