Search

Purpose: Patient-reported health-related quality of life is a complementary healthcare outcome and important when assessing treatment efficacy. Using COSMIN methodological recommendations, this study evaluates the validity and reliability of a core heart disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire, the HeartQoL questionnaire (Danish version) in a sample of patients following heart valve surgery., Design: This project involved a cross-sectional validity study and a test-retest reliability study., Methods: Eligible patients completed the HeartQoL, the SF-36 health survey questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale following heart valve surgery. Construct validity was tested using a priori hypotheses. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. An independent sample of patients participated in the test-retest study and reproducibility was determined with relative [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] and absolute reliability [standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC)]., Results: Internal consistency was high with Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.87. ICC was 0.86-0.92. SEM ranged from 0.17 to 0.26 points and SDC ranged from 0.5 to 0.7 points. Construct validity was confirmed with 87% of all a priori hypotheses for predicted variables., Conclusions: The HeartQoL questionnaire demonstrates acceptable construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reproducibility in patients following heart valve surgery. Future studies should focus on assessing the responsiveness of the HeartQoL questionnaire over time and following heart valve surgery.

The German versions of two patient-perceived heart disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the MacNew Heart Disease questionnaire, were examined for their psychometric properties in patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and angina who were treated either medically or invasively and followed up for 1 year. Both HRQL questionnaires and the modified Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina-associated disability scale were completed by 158 patients at baseline and 12 months later when they also completed a generic health status questionnaire, the SF-36. Both specific HRQL questionnaires were acceptable to patients. Three of the four MacNew scales, but none of the SAQ scales, discriminated between patients by baseline CCS disability levels I and IV. Internal consistency ranged from 0.75 to 0.94 for the SAQ and from 0.86 to 0.97 for the MacNew scales. Test-retest reliability over a 4-week period of time ranged from 0.45 to 0.81 for the SAQ scales and 0.61 to 0.68 for the MacNew scales. Over 12 months, HRQL improved (p < 0.001) on three of the five SAQ and on all four of the MacNew scales with the responsiveness statistic ranging from 0.59 to 1.55 for the SAQ and 0.86 to 1.12 for the MacNew. The 12 month scores on all SAQ and MacNew scales were significantly higher in patients who improved than those who deteriorated on the SF-36 reported health transition question. We conclude that the SAQ and the MacNew are both valid, reliable, and responsive in German, that the MacNew discriminates better between angina grades at baseline, that HRQL improves over 12 months with both measures, that the SAQ angina frequency and disease perception scales have the largest effect sizes, and that the 12-month change in HRQL with both instruments was associated with change in SF-36 reported health transition status.

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments have been used to measure HRQL in heart failure patients, but how different instruments compare in the same groups of patients is not known. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability and validity of three HRQL measures in 211 heart failure patients recruited from clinics affiliated with an urban hospital. Two disease-specific instruments, the chronic heart failure questionnaire (CHQ) and the living with heart failure questionnaire (LHFQ), and one generic instrument, the short-form 12 (SF-12), were administered. Patients reported moderate to low HRQL scores. Floor or ceiling effects were noted in the disease-specific instruments. Internal consistency reliabilities of the CHQ and LHFQ were satisfactory. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity were supported for each instrument. Each scale and subscale, except for the SF-12 mental component scale, differentiated between patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, II, and III plus IV; the LHFQ physical subscale was the only measure to differentiate between patients with NYHA class III and IV. All three instruments were satisfactory for measuring HRQL, but the disease-specific instruments were preferable to the generic instrument. The decision of which instrument to use depends on the purpose of the study.

Objective: To report reference data for the heart-specific MacNew Heart Disease Health-Related Quality of Life instrument., Methods: One thousand five hundred and six patients with myocardial infarction (n = 346), heart failure (n = 201), and ischaemic heart disease (IHD, n = 959) were surveyed 4 months after hospital discharge. Quality of life scores were determined, stratified by diagnostic category, age and sex. Changes in scores from 4 to 8 months post-discharge were calculated for a subset of 830 patients, stratified by age and sex., Results: At 4 months there were no significant differences in scores between myocardial infarction and electively admitted IHD patients, however the scores of heart failure patients were significantly lower (indicating poorer quality of life) than those of patients with other diagnoses. There were few significant differences between age groups or sexes when comparing within diagnostic groups. Change from 4 to 8 months was not associated with diagnosis, age, or sex but was associated with events within the period (readmission or revascularisation). The change data suggest that a value of 0.5 may be a useful indicator of the minimal clinically important difference., Conclusions: These reference data will assist in sample size calculations and with comparison of results in other studies, and will be of use to researchers who are using or intending to use the MacNew instrument.