BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is an increasingly common condition affecting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, there is little literature comparing HF-specific instruments. Our aim was to evaluate and compare data on the conceptual model and metric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness) of HF-specific HRQL instruments, by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 2,541 articles initially identified, 421 were full-text reviewed. Ninety-four reported data on five questionnaires: Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHFQ), Quality of Life Questionnaire for Severe Heart Failure (QLQ-SHF), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and Left Ventricular Dysfunction (LVD-36) questionnaire. Metric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness) were summarised using meta-analysis for pools above five estimates. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were generally high (0.83-0.95) for overall scores and scales measuring physical health. Associations with four validity criteria (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class, six-minute walk test [6MWT] and short form-36 [SF-36] 'Physical' and 'Social Functioning') were moderate to strong (0.41-0.84), except for those between two CHFQ domains (fatigue and dyspnoea) and the NYHA (0.19 and 0.22). Pooled estimates of change from eight meta-analyses showed the MLHFQ to be highly responsive, with changes in overall score ranging from -9.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.1; -15.2) for placebo to -17.7 (95% CI: -15.3; -20.2) for pacing devices. The CHFQ and KCCQ also showed good sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the questionnaires studied met minimum psychometric criteria, though current evidence would primarily support the use of the MLHFQ, followed by the KCCQ and CHFQ.
BACKGROUND:Heart failure (HF) is an increasingly common condition affecting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, there is little literature comparing HF-specific instruments. Our aim was to evaluate and compare data on the conceptual model and metric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness) of HF-specific HRQL instruments, by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 2,541 articles initially identified, 421 were full-text reviewed. Ninety-four reported data on five questionnaires: Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHFQ), Quality of Life Questionnaire for Severe Heart Failure (QLQ-SHF), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and Left Ventricular Dysfunction (LVD-36) questionnaire. Metric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness) were summarised using meta-analysis for pools above five estimates. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were generally high (0.83-0.95) for overall scores and scales measuring physical health. Associations with four validity criteria (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class, six-minute walk test [6MWT] and short form-36 [SF-36] 'Physical' and 'Social Functioning') were moderate to strong (0.41-0.84), except for those between two CHFQ domains (fatigue and dyspnoea) and the NYHA (0.19 and 0.22). Pooled estimates of change from eight meta-analyses showed the MLHFQ to be highly responsive, with changes in overall score ranging from -9.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.1; -15.2) for placebo to -17.7 (95% CI: -15.3; -20.2) for pacing devices. The CHFQ and KCCQ also showed good sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the questionnaires studied met minimum psychometric criteria, though current evidence would primarily support the use of the MLHFQ, followed by the KCCQ and CHFQ.
Authors: B Middel; J Bouma; M de Jongste; E van Sonderen; M G Niemeijer; H Crijns; W van den Heuvel Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: T S Rector; G Johnson; W B Dunkman; G Daniels; L Farrell; A Henrick; B Smith; J N Cohn Journal: Circulation Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jordi Alonso; Montserrat Ferrer; Barbara Gandek; John E Ware; Neil K Aaronson; Paola Mosconi; Niels K Rasmussen; Monika Bullinger; Shunichi Fukuhara; Stein Kaasa; Alain Leplège Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Joanna Ghali; Kathy Nicholls; Charles Denaro; David Sillence; Ian Chapman; Jack Goldblatt; Mark Thomas; Janice Fletcher Journal: JIMD Rep Date: 2011-09-15
Authors: Windy W Alonso; Kenneth M Faulkner; Bunny J Pozehl; Judith E Hupcey; Lisa A Kitko; Christopher S Lee Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Theresa Munyombwe; Stefan Höfer; Donna Fitzsimons; David R Thompson; Deidre Lane; Karen Smith; Felicity Astin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Marie Bakitas; Meredith Macmartin; Kenneth Trzepkowski; Alina Robert; Lisa Jackson; Jeremiah R Brown; James N Dionne-Odom; Alan Kono Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Olatz Garin; Michael Herdman; Gemma Vilagut; Montse Ferrer; Aida Ribera; Luis Rajmil; José M Valderas; Francis Guillemin; Dennis Revicki; Jordi Alonso Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.214