INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the applicability, internal consistency and validity of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) when used in primary care, compared with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey. METHODS: The two questionnaires were administered to 589 patients with chronic heart failure who were registered with 97 primary care physicians. The applicability, internal consistency and validity of the MLHFQ were evaluated and comparisons were made with the SF-36. RESULTS: More than 90% of patients completed the questionnaires. The percentage of uncompleted items was low. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 for the various MLHFQ dimensions. Exploratory factorial analysis identified two factors that explained 65.8% of the variance. Moderate to good correlations were observed between similar dimensions of the MLHFQ and SF-36 (correlation coefficient -0.43 to -0.73). There were significant associations between scores on the MLHFQ and clinical measures of disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: When used in primary care, the MLHFQ had a high level of acceptability and good psychometric properties compared with the SF-36. Consequently, it would be useful for assessing health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the applicability, internal consistency and validity of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) when used in primary care, compared with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey. METHODS: The two questionnaires were administered to 589 patients with chronic heart failure who were registered with 97 primary care physicians. The applicability, internal consistency and validity of the MLHFQ were evaluated and comparisons were made with the SF-36. RESULTS: More than 90% of patients completed the questionnaires. The percentage of uncompleted items was low. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 for the various MLHFQ dimensions. Exploratory factorial analysis identified two factors that explained 65.8% of the variance. Moderate to good correlations were observed between similar dimensions of the MLHFQ and SF-36 (correlation coefficient -0.43 to -0.73). There were significant associations between scores on the MLHFQ and clinical measures of disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: When used in primary care, the MLHFQ had a high level of acceptability and good psychometric properties compared with the SF-36. Consequently, it would be useful for assessing health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure.
Authors: Scott D Barnett; Eric L Sarin; Linda Henry; Linda Halpin; Grace Pritchard; Alan M Speir Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Astrid E Lammers; Ian Adatia; Maria Jesus Del Cerro; Gabriel Diaz; Alexandra Heath Freudenthal; Franz Freudenthal; S Harikrishnan; Dunbar Ivy; Antonio A Lopes; J Usha Raj; Julio Sandoval; Kurt Stenmark; Sheila G Haworth Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Paloma Gastelurrutia; Josep Lupón; Pedro Moliner; Xiaobo Yang; German Cediel; Marta de Antonio; Mar Domingo; Salvador Altimir; Beatriz González; Margarita Rodríguez; Carmen Rivas; Violeta Díaz; Erik Fung; Elisabet Zamora; Javier Santesmases; Julio Núñez; Jean Woo; Antoni Bayes-Genis Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-04-19