Pham L Tran1,2, C Leigh Blizzard3, Velandai Srikanth1,4, Vo T X Hanh2, Nguyen T K Lien5, Nguyen H Thang5, Seana L Gall1. 1. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. 2. Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 3. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. Leigh.Blizzard@utas.edu.au. 4. Stroke and Ageing Research Centre, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Stroke Unit, Cerebrovascular Disease Department, 115 People's Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is commonly used to assess outcomes after stroke. The Duke Health Profile (DHP) has been translated and culturally adapted for use in Vietnam, but its reliability and validity for use with stroke patients in Vietnam or elsewhere have not been assessed. METHODS: First-ever stroke patients (n = 108) who were admitted to 115 People's Hospital between February and September 2012 and survived for 3 months after stroke had HRQoL assessed using the DHP and a comparison instrument (EQ-5D). Caregivers of 94 patients completed these questionnaires as a proxy. After 1 week, these questionnaires were re-administered to patients and proxies. RESULTS: The mean differences between test and retest assessments of HRQoL by patients were small and not clinically meaningful and were not consistently associated with sex, age, type of stroke or severity of impairment or disability. Direct assessments by the patient were on average greater than those obtained from the proxy. The ICCs ranged from 0.60 to 0.86 (patient test-retest) and from 0.55 to 0.98 (patient-proxy agreement). The ICCs were greatest for physical functioning components (patient test-retest 0.63-0.86, patient-proxy 0.69-0.98). The correlations between the DHP dimensions and EQ-5D were generally stronger when they measured similar constructs (r = 0.53-0.66) and were lower for less related constructs (r = 0.11-0.43). CONCLUSION: The DHP has moderate reliability and validity for use with stroke patients in Vietnam even when information is obtained from proxy respondents.
INTRODUCTION: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is commonly used to assess outcomes after stroke. The Duke Health Profile (DHP) has been translated and culturally adapted for use in Vietnam, but its reliability and validity for use with strokepatients in Vietnam or elsewhere have not been assessed. METHODS: First-ever strokepatients (n = 108) who were admitted to 115 People's Hospital between February and September 2012 and survived for 3 months after stroke had HRQoL assessed using the DHP and a comparison instrument (EQ-5D). Caregivers of 94 patients completed these questionnaires as a proxy. After 1 week, these questionnaires were re-administered to patients and proxies. RESULTS: The mean differences between test and retest assessments of HRQoL by patients were small and not clinically meaningful and were not consistently associated with sex, age, type of stroke or severity of impairment or disability. Direct assessments by the patient were on average greater than those obtained from the proxy. The ICCs ranged from 0.60 to 0.86 (patient test-retest) and from 0.55 to 0.98 (patient-proxy agreement). The ICCs were greatest for physical functioning components (patient test-retest 0.63-0.86, patient-proxy 0.69-0.98). The correlations between the DHP dimensions and EQ-5D were generally stronger when they measured similar constructs (r = 0.53-0.66) and were lower for less related constructs (r = 0.11-0.43). CONCLUSION: The DHP has moderate reliability and validity for use with strokepatients in Vietnam even when information is obtained from proxy respondents.
Entities:
Keywords:
Duke Health Profile; Health-related quality of life; Reliability; Stroke; Validity
Authors: Dinalva L Cabral; Glória E C Laurentino; Caroline G Damascena; Christina D C M Faria; Priscilla G Melo; Luci F Teixeira-Salmela Journal: Rev Bras Fisioter Date: 2012-06-21
Authors: Vo Thi Xuan Hanh; Francis Guillemin; Duong Dinh Cong; George R Parkerson; Pham Bach Thu; Pham Tu Quynh; Serge Briançon Journal: J Adolesc Date: 2005-02
Authors: S C Smith; D L Lamping; S Banerjee; R Harwood; B Foley; P Smith; J C Cook; J Murray; M Prince; E Levin; A Mann; M Knapp Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: J Novella; J Ankri; I Morrone; F Guillemin; D Jolly; C Jochum; L Ploton; F Blanchard Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2001 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Nicolas R Thompson; Andrew Schuster; Ryan Honomichl; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Raed A Joundi; Joel Adekanye; Alexander A Leung; Paul Ronksley; Eric E Smith; Alexander D Rebchuk; Thalia S Field; Michael D Hill; Stephen B Wilton; Lauren C Bresee Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 6.106