John E Ware1,2, Michelle M Richardson3,4, Klemens B Meyer3,4, Barbara Gandek5,2. 1. John Ware Research Group, Outcomes Measurement Department, Watertown, Massachusetts; john.ware@jwrginc.com. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. 3. William B. Schwartz Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 4. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., Outcomes Monitoring Program, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. John Ware Research Group, Outcomes Measurement Department, Watertown, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures that are more practical and clinically useful are needed for patients with CKD. We compared a new CKD-specific quality-of-life impact scale (CKD-QOL) with currently used measures. METHODS: Patients (n=485) in different treatment groups (nondialysis stages 3-5, on dialysis, or post-transplant) completed the kidney-specific CKD-QOL and Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36) forms and the generic SF-12 Health Survey at baseline and 3 months. New items summarizing quality of life (QOL) impact attributed to CKD across six QOL domains yielded single impact scores from a six-item static (fixed-length) form and from computerized adaptive tests (CATs) with three to six items. Validity tests compared the CKD-QOL, KDQOL-36 (Burden, Effects, and Symptoms/Problems subscales), and generic SF-12 measures across groups in four tests of clinical status and clinician assessment of change (CKD-specific tests), and number of comorbidities. ANOVA was used to test for group mean differences, variances in each measure explained by groups, and relative validity (RV) in comparison with the referent KDQOL-36 Burden subscale. RESULTS: KDQOL-36 and CKD-QOL measures generally discriminated better than generic SF-12v2 measures. The pattern of variances across CKD-specific tests comparing validity favored CKD-QOL two-fold over KDQOL-36. Two RV test results confirmed CKD-QOL improvements over the referent KDQOL scale. Results for static and CAT CKD-QOL forms were similar. SF-12 Physical and KDQOL-36 Symptoms scores worsened with increasing comorbid condition counts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, compared with the KDQOL-36, the new approach to summarizing CKD-specific QOL impact performed better across multiple tests of validity. CAT surveys were more efficient than static surveys.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures that are more practical and clinically useful are needed for patients with CKD. We compared a new CKD-specific quality-of-life impact scale (CKD-QOL) with currently used measures. METHODS:Patients (n=485) in different treatment groups (nondialysis stages 3-5, on dialysis, or post-transplant) completed the kidney-specific CKD-QOL and Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36) forms and the generic SF-12 Health Survey at baseline and 3 months. New items summarizing quality of life (QOL) impact attributed to CKD across six QOL domains yielded single impact scores from a six-item static (fixed-length) form and from computerized adaptive tests (CATs) with three to six items. Validity tests compared the CKD-QOL, KDQOL-36 (Burden, Effects, and Symptoms/Problems subscales), and generic SF-12 measures across groups in four tests of clinical status and clinician assessment of change (CKD-specific tests), and number of comorbidities. ANOVA was used to test for group mean differences, variances in each measure explained by groups, and relative validity (RV) in comparison with the referent KDQOL-36 Burden subscale. RESULTS: KDQOL-36 and CKD-QOL measures generally discriminated better than generic SF-12v2 measures. The pattern of variances across CKD-specific tests comparing validity favored CKD-QOL two-fold over KDQOL-36. Two RV test results confirmed CKD-QOL improvements over the referent KDQOL scale. Results for static and CAT CKD-QOL forms were similar. SF-12 Physical and KDQOL-36 Symptoms scores worsened with increasing comorbid condition counts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, compared with the KDQOL-36, the new approach to summarizing CKD-specific QOL impact performed better across multiple tests of validity. CAT surveys were more efficient than static surveys.
Authors: S M Webb; X Badia; M J Barahona; A Colao; C J Strasburger; A Tabarin; M O van Aken; R Pivonello; G Stalla; S W J Lamberts; J E Glusman Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Kosinski; M S Bayliss; J B Bjorner; J E Ware; W H Garber; A Batenhorst; R Cady; C G H Dahlöf; A Dowson; S Tepper Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: John E Ware; Mark Kosinski; Jakob B Bjorner; Martha S Bayliss; Alice Batenhorst; Carl G H Dahlöf; Stewart Tepper; Andrew Dowson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: C G N Voorend; M van Oevelen; M Nieberg; Y Meuleman; C F M Franssen; H Joosten; N C Berkhout-Byrne; A C Abrahams; S P Mooijaart; W J W Bos; M van Buren Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Tessa S Schoot; Namiko A Goto; Rob J van Marum; Luuk B Hilbrands; Angèle P M Kerckhoffs Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 2.266