BACKGROUND: Although numerous health-related quality-of-life instruments are available to measure patients' quality of life, few studies have compared these measures directly to determine how they function in the same group of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to empirically compare psychometric properties of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the General Health Survey Short-form-12 (SF-12). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 211 patients with heart failure completed baseline questionnaires; 165 patients completed the entire 26-week study. METHODS: Patients completed telephone interviews at baseline and at 4, 8, and 26 weeks after baseline. To compare mode of administration, a subset of patients (n = 173) completed face-to-face and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patients reported low-to-moderate health-related quality-of-life overall. Reliability of the three instruments was satisfactory. Responsiveness to changing condition, as evaluated by analysis of variance, receiver operating curve characteristics, and the minimal clinically important difference method, indicated that the CHQ and LHFQ were more responsive to changing conditions than the SF-12. No major differences were noted between the scores of the face-to-face interviews and the baseline telephone interviews. The LHFQ and SF-12 were easier and took less time to administer than the CHQ. CONCLUSIONS: While all three instruments were reliable and valid, the CHQ and LHFQ were more sensitive than the SF-12 in detecting clinically important changes over time.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although numerous health-related quality-of-life instruments are available to measure patients' quality of life, few studies have compared these measures directly to determine how they function in the same group of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to empirically compare psychometric properties of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the General Health Survey Short-form-12 (SF-12). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 211 patients with heart failure completed baseline questionnaires; 165 patients completed the entire 26-week study. METHODS:Patients completed telephone interviews at baseline and at 4, 8, and 26 weeks after baseline. To compare mode of administration, a subset of patients (n = 173) completed face-to-face and telephone interviews. RESULTS:Patients reported low-to-moderate health-related quality-of-life overall. Reliability of the three instruments was satisfactory. Responsiveness to changing condition, as evaluated by analysis of variance, receiver operating curve characteristics, and the minimal clinically important difference method, indicated that the CHQ and LHFQ were more responsive to changing conditions than the SF-12. No major differences were noted between the scores of the face-to-face interviews and the baseline telephone interviews. The LHFQ and SF-12 were easier and took less time to administer than the CHQ. CONCLUSIONS: While all three instruments were reliable and valid, the CHQ and LHFQ were more sensitive than the SF-12 in detecting clinically important changes over time.
Authors: Susan J Pressler; Barbara Therrien; Penny L Riley; Cheng-Chen Chou; David L Ronis; Todd M Koelling; Dean G Smith; Barbara Jean Sullivan; Ann-Marie Frankini; Bruno Giordani Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Susan J Pressler; Alison Martineau; Judith Grossi; Bruno Giordani; Todd M Koelling; David L Ronis; Penny L Riley; Cheng-Chen Chou; Barbara J Sullivan; Dean G Smith Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Jerry C Johnson; Bernard S Bloom; Sanford Nidich; Shashank Desai; Sumedha Chhatre; Donna B Raziano; Robert Schneider Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Dirk Heider; Katharina Kitze; Margrit Zieger; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Matthias C Angermeyer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-09-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michael L Alosco; Mary Beth Spitznagel; Naftali Raz; Ronald Cohen; Lawrence H Sweet; Lisa H Colbert; Richard Josephson; Manfred van Dulmen; Joel Hughes; Jim Rosneck; John Gunstad Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Michael L Alosco; Mary Beth Spitznagel; Ronald Cohen; Lawrence H Sweet; Richard Josephson; Joel Hughes; Jim Rosneck; John Gunstad Journal: Acta Cardiol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Michael L Alosco; Adam M Brickman; Mary Beth Spitznagel; Erica Y Griffith; Atul Narkhede; Naftali Raz; Ronald Cohen; Lawrence H Sweet; Lisa H Colbert; Richard Josephson; Joel Hughes; Jim Rosneck; John Gunstad Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2013-03-23 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Robert C Wu; Kevin Thorpe; Heather Ross; Vaska Micevski; Christine Marquez; Sharon E Straus Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 5.428