Janet S Carpenter1, Giorgos Bakoyannis, Julie L Otte, Chen X Chen, Kevin L Rand, Nancy Woods, Katherine Newton, Hadine Joffe, JoAnn E Manson, Ellen W Freeman, Katherine A Guthrie. 1. 1School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 2Department of Biostatistics, Fairbanks School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 3Department of Psychology, School of Science, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, IN 4University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA 5Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 6Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 7Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 8Departments of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 9MsFLASH Data Coordinating Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct psychometric analyses to condense the Hot Flash-Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) into a shorter form termed the Hot Flash Interference (HFI) scale; evaluate cut-points for both scales; and establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for both scales. METHODS: We analyzed baseline and postrandomization patient-reported data pooled across three randomized trials aimed at reducing vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in 899 midlife women. Trials were conducted across five MsFLASH clinical sites between July 2009 and October 2012. We eliminated HFRDIS items based on experts' content validity ratings and confirmatory factor analysis, and evaluated cut-points and established MIDs by mapping HFRDIS and HFI to other measures. RESULTS: The three-item HFI (interference with sleep, mood, and concentration) demonstrated strong internal consistency (alphas of 0.830 and 0.856), showed good fit to the unidimensional "hot flash interference factor," and strong convergent validity with HFRDIS scores, diary VMS, and menopausal quality of life. For both scales, cut-points of mild (0-3.9), moderate (4-6.9), and severe (7-10) interference were associated with increasing diary VMS ratings, sleep, and anxiety. The average MID was 1.66 for the HFRDIS and 2.34 for the HFI. CONCLUSIONS: The HFI is a brief assessment of VMS interference and will be useful in busy clinics to standardize VMS assessment or in research studies where response burden may be an issue. The scale cut-points and MIDs should prove useful in targeting those most in need of treatment, monitoring treatment response, and interpreting existing and future research findings.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct psychometric analyses to condense the Hot Flash-Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) into a shorter form termed the Hot Flash Interference (HFI) scale; evaluate cut-points for both scales; and establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for both scales. METHODS: We analyzed baseline and postrandomization patient-reported data pooled across three randomized trials aimed at reducing vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in 899 midlife women. Trials were conducted across five MsFLASH clinical sites between July 2009 and October 2012. We eliminated HFRDIS items based on experts' content validity ratings and confirmatory factor analysis, and evaluated cut-points and established MIDs by mapping HFRDIS and HFI to other measures. RESULTS: The three-item HFI (interference with sleep, mood, and concentration) demonstrated strong internal consistency (alphas of 0.830 and 0.856), showed good fit to the unidimensional "hot flash interference factor," and strong convergent validity with HFRDIS scores, diary VMS, and menopausal quality of life. For both scales, cut-points of mild (0-3.9), moderate (4-6.9), and severe (7-10) interference were associated with increasing diary VMS ratings, sleep, and anxiety. The average MID was 1.66 for the HFRDIS and 2.34 for the HFI. CONCLUSIONS: The HFI is a brief assessment of VMS interference and will be useful in busy clinics to standardize VMS assessment or in research studies where response burden may be an issue. The scale cut-points and MIDs should prove useful in targeting those most in need of treatment, monitoring treatment response, and interpreting existing and future research findings.
Authors: Janet S Carpenter; Anna Maria Storniolo; Shelley Johns; Patrick O Monahan; Faouzi Azzouz; Julie L Elam; Cynthia S Johnson; Richard C Shelton Journal: Oncologist Date: 2007-01
Authors: Debra L Barton; Beth I LaVasseur; Jeff A Sloan; Allen N Stawis; Kathleen A Flynn; Missy Dyar; David B Johnson; Pamela J Atherton; Brent Diekmann; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J R Hilditch; J Lewis; A Peter; B van Maris; A Ross; E Franssen; G H Guyatt; P G Norton; E Dunn Journal: Maturitas Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: J S Carpenter; N F Woods; J L Otte; K A Guthrie; C Hohensee; K M Newton; H Joffe; L Cohen; B Sternfeld; R J Lau; S D Reed; A Z LaCroix Journal: Climacteric Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 3.024
Authors: Ellen W Freeman; Katherine A Guthrie; Bette Caan; Barbara Sternfeld; Lee S Cohen; Hadine Joffe; Janet S Carpenter; Garnet L Anderson; Joseph C Larson; Kristine E Ensrud; Susan D Reed; Katherine M Newton; Sheryl Sherman; Mary D Sammel; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Nancy Fugate Woods; Chancellor Hohensee; Janet S Carpenter; Lee Cohen; Kristine Ensrud; Ellen W Freeman; Katherine A Guthrie; Hadine Joffe; Andrea Z LaCroix; Julie L Otte Journal: Menopause Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.310
Authors: Chen X Chen; Tabitha Murphy; Susan Ofner; Lilian Yahng; Peter Krombach; Michelle LaPradd; Giorgos Bakoyannis; Janet S Carpenter Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Nanette Santoro; Arthur Waldbaum; Samuel Lederman; Robin Kroll; Graeme L Fraser; Christopher Lademacher; Laurence Skillern; James Young; Steven Ramael Journal: Menopause Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.310