K A Vincent1, A J Carr, J Walburn, D L Scott, M R Rose. 1. Department of Neurology, King's College Hospital and the Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College, University of London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because there is no muscle disease specific measure of quality of life (QoL), we wanted to develop and validate an individualized muscle disease specific measure of QoL for adults suitable for both clinical and research use. METHODS: A literature review exploring QoL and its measurement resulted in the development of a theoretical model of QoL. This was used alongside qualitative interviews (n = 41) and a postal survey (n = 252) to design a questionnaire. The psychometric properties, validity (n = 95), reliability (n = 40), and responsiveness (n = 25) of the scale were assessed. RESULTS: The Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life questionnaire (INQoL) consists of 45 questions within 10 sections. Four of these focus on the impact of key muscle disease symptoms (weakness, locking [i.e., myotonia], pain, and fatigue), five look at the impact (degree and importance of impact) muscle disease has on particular areas of life, and one section asks about the positive and negative effects of treatment. The questionnaire is structured to allow for variations in the individual characteristics that influence quality of life. Psychometric evaluation established construct validity and test-retest reliability. A preliminary assessment of responsiveness was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life is a validated muscle disease specific measure of quality of life developed from the experiences of patients with muscle disease and can be used for individuals or large samples.
BACKGROUND: Because there is no muscle disease specific measure of quality of life (QoL), we wanted to develop and validate an individualized muscle disease specific measure of QoL for adults suitable for both clinical and research use. METHODS: A literature review exploring QoL and its measurement resulted in the development of a theoretical model of QoL. This was used alongside qualitative interviews (n = 41) and a postal survey (n = 252) to design a questionnaire. The psychometric properties, validity (n = 95), reliability (n = 40), and responsiveness (n = 25) of the scale were assessed. RESULTS: The Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life questionnaire (INQoL) consists of 45 questions within 10 sections. Four of these focus on the impact of key muscle disease symptoms (weakness, locking [i.e., myotonia], pain, and fatigue), five look at the impact (degree and importance of impact) muscle disease has on particular areas of life, and one section asks about the positive and negative effects of treatment. The questionnaire is structured to allow for variations in the individual characteristics that influence quality of life. Psychometric evaluation established construct validity and test-retest reliability. A preliminary assessment of responsiveness was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life is a validated muscle disease specific measure of quality of life developed from the experiences of patients with muscle disease and can be used for individuals or large samples.
Authors: René Rizzoli; Jean-Yves Reginster; Jean-François Arnal; Ivan Bautmans; Charlotte Beaudart; Heike Bischoff-Ferrari; Emmanuel Biver; Steven Boonen; Maria-Luisa Brandi; Arkadi Chines; Cyrus Cooper; Sol Epstein; Roger A Fielding; Bret Goodpaster; John A Kanis; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Andrea Laslop; Vincenzo Malafarina; Leocadio Rodriguez Mañas; Bruce H Mitlak; Richard O Oreffo; Jean Petermans; Kieran Reid; Yves Rolland; Avan Aihie Sayer; Yannis Tsouderos; Marjolein Visser; Olivier Bruyère Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Chad Heatwole; Rita Bode; Nicholas E Johnson; Jeanne Dekdebrun; Nuran Dilek; Katy Eichinger; James E Hilbert; Eric Logigian; Elizabeth Luebbe; William Martens; Michael P Mcdermott; Shree Pandya; Araya Puwanant; Nan Rothrock; Charles Thornton; Barbara G Vickrey; David Victorson; Richard T Moxley Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Darcy J Huismann; Jane P Sheldon; Beverly M Yashar; Kimberly Amburgey; James J Dowling; Elizabeth M Petty Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Doris G Leung; Daniel A Herzka; W Reid Thompson; Bing He; Genila Bibat; Gihan Tennekoon; Stuart D Russell; Karl H Schuleri; Albert C Lardo; David A Kass; Richard E Thompson; Daniel P Judge; Kathryn R Wagner Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Helene Alexanderson; Maria Del Grande; Clifton O Bingham; Ana-Maria Orbai; Catherine Sarver; Katherine Clegg-Smith; Ingrid E Lundberg; Yeong Wook Song; Lisa Christopher-Stine Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Anne M Connolly; Elizabeth C Malkus; Jerry R Mendell; Kevin M Flanigan; J Philip Miller; Jeanine R Schierbecker; Catherine A Siener; Paul T Golumbek; Craig M Zaidman; Craig M Mcdonald; Linda Johnson; Alina Nicorici; Peter I Karachunski; John W Day; Jason M Kelecic; Linda P Lowes; Lindsay N Alfano; Basil T Darras; Peter B Kang; Janet Quigley; Amy E Pasternak; Julaine M Florence Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 3.217