Iris F Groeneveld1, Henk J Arwert2, Paulien H Goossens3, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland4. 1. Sophia Rehabilitation, Den Haag, The Netherlands; Rijnlands Rehabilitation Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: igo@rrc.nl. 2. Sophia Rehabilitation, Den Haag, The Netherlands; Haaglanden Medical Center, Den Haag, The Netherlands. 3. Rijnlands Rehabilitation Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Sophia Rehabilitation, Den Haag, The Netherlands; Rijnlands Rehabilitation Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unmet needs are common after stroke. We aimed to translate the 22-item Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke (LUNS) Questionnaire and validate it in a Dutch stroke population. METHODS: The LUNS was translated and cross-culturally adapted according to international guidelines. After field testing, the Dutch version was administered twice to a hospital-based cohort 5-8 years after stroke. Participants were also asked to complete the Frenchay Activity Index (FAI) and Short Form (SF)-12. To explore acceptability, the response and completion rates as well as number of missing items were computed. For concurrent validity, the differences in health status (FAI, SF-12) between groups who did and did not report an unmet need were calculated per item. To determine the 14-day test-retest reliability, the percentage of agreement between the first and the second administration was calculated for each item. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of 145 patients (53.8%) returned the initial Dutch LUNS (average age 68.3 [standard deviation 14.0] years, 59.0% male); 66 of these patients (84.6%) fully completed it. Of all items, 3.3% were missing. Among completers, the median number of unmet needs was 3.5 (2.0-5.0; 1.0-14.0). For 15 of 22 items, there was a significant association with the FAI or SF-12 Mental or Physical Component Summary scales. The percentage of agreement ranged from 69.8% to 98.1% per item. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 53.8% who completed the survey, the LUNS was concluded to be feasible, reliable, and valid; two-thirds of its items were related to activities and quality of life. Its usefulness and acceptability when administered in routine practice require further study.
BACKGROUND: Unmet needs are common after stroke. We aimed to translate the 22-item Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke (LUNS) Questionnaire and validate it in a Dutch stroke population. METHODS: The LUNS was translated and cross-culturally adapted according to international guidelines. After field testing, the Dutch version was administered twice to a hospital-based cohort 5-8 years after stroke. Participants were also asked to complete the Frenchay Activity Index (FAI) and Short Form (SF)-12. To explore acceptability, the response and completion rates as well as number of missing items were computed. For concurrent validity, the differences in health status (FAI, SF-12) between groups who did and did not report an unmet need were calculated per item. To determine the 14-day test-retest reliability, the percentage of agreement between the first and the second administration was calculated for each item. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of 145 patients (53.8%) returned the initial Dutch LUNS (average age 68.3 [standard deviation 14.0] years, 59.0% male); 66 of these patients (84.6%) fully completed it. Of all items, 3.3% were missing. Among completers, the median number of unmet needs was 3.5 (2.0-5.0; 1.0-14.0). For 15 of 22 items, there was a significant association with the FAI or SF-12 Mental or Physical Component Summary scales. The percentage of agreement ranged from 69.8% to 98.1% per item. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 53.8% who completed the survey, the LUNS was concluded to be feasible, reliable, and valid; two-thirds of its items were related to activities and quality of life. Its usefulness and acceptability when administered in routine practice require further study.
Authors: Annemarie P M Stiekema; Christine Resch; Mireille Donkervoort; Natska Jansen; Kitty H M Jurrius; Judith M Zadoks; Caroline M van Heugten Journal: Trials Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 2.279