Search

Background: Multimorbidity is a growing problem. The number and complexity of (non-)pharmaceutical treatments create a great burden for patients. Treatment burden refers to the perception of the weight of these treatments, and is associated with multimorbidity. Measurement of treatment burden is of great value for optimizing treatment and health-related outcomes., Objective: We aim to translate and validate the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) for use in the Dutch population with multimorbidity and explore the level of treatment burden., Methods: Translating the MTBQ into Dutch included forward-backward translation, piloting, and cognitive interviewing (n = 8). Psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed in a cross-sectional study of patients with multimorbidity recruited from a panel in the Netherlands (n = 959). We examined item properties, dimensionality, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity. The level of treatment burden in the population was assessed., Results: The mean age among 959 participants with multimorbidity was 69.9 (17-96) years. Median global NL-MTBQ score was 3.85 (interquartile range 0-9.62), representing low treatment burden. Significant floor effects were found for all 13 items of the instrument. Factor analysis supported a single-factor structure. The NL-MTBQ had high internal consistency (α = 0.845), and provided good evidence on the construct validity of the scale., Conclusion: The Dutch version of the 13-item MTBQ is a single-structured, valid, and compact patient-reported outcome measure to assess treatment burden in primary care patients with multimorbidity. It could identify patients experiencing high treatment burden, with great potential to enhance shared decision-making and offer additional support., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: To undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects., Design: Survey., Setting: UK primary care., Participants: Adults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post., Measures: Baseline survey: sociodemographics, MTBQ (original or version with scale reversed), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), four questions (from QQ-10) on ease of completing the questionnaires. Follow-up survey (1-4 weeks after baseline): MTBQ, TBQ and QQ-10. Anonymous data collected from electronic GP records: consultations (preceding 12 months) and long-term conditions. The proportion of missing data and distribution of responses were examined for the original and reversed versions of the MTBQ and the TBQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman's rank correlation (R s ) assessed test-retest reliability and construct validity, respectively. Ease of completing the MTBQ and TBQ was compared. Interpretability was assessed by grouping global MTBQ scores into 0 and tertiles (>0)., Results: 244 adults completed the baseline survey (consent rate 31%, mean age 70 years) and 225 completed the follow-up survey. Reversing the scale did not reduce floor effects or data skewness. The global MTBQ scores had good test-retest reliability (ICC for agreement at baseline and follow-up 0.765, 95% CI 0.702 to 0.816). Global MTBQ score was correlated with global TBQ score (R s 0.77, p<0.001), weakly correlated with number of consultations (R s 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (R s 0.23, p<0.001), but not correlated with number of long-term conditions (R s -0.063, p=0.330). Most participants agreed that both the MTBQ and TBQ were easy to complete and included aspects they were concerned about., Conclusion: This study demonstrates test-retest reliability and ease of completion of the MTBQ and builds on a previous study demonstrating good content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PD and CS developed and validated the MTBQ. CS is an NIHR Senior Investigator., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity among older people in Lithuania and other Central-Eastern European countries leads to a greater patient treatment burden and puts additional pressure on healthcare services., Objectives: This study aimed to validate the Lithuanian version of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ)., Methods: The Lithuanian version of the MTBQ was tested (2021-2022) with 789 patients from seven Lithuanian primary care centres who had two or more long-term conditions. The questionnaire translation's reliability, validity and dimensionality of the were assessed with Spearman's rank correlation, Cronbach's alpha, and factor reduction analysis. Treatment burden and its associations with sociodemographic and other indicators were analysed., Results: Lithuanian version of MTBQ had good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.711), validity, factor reduction applicability, and interpretability. The MTBQ scores of the questionnaire had a negative association with the quality-of-life scale (r=-0.327, 95% CI [-0.389, -0.264]) and positive associations with the self-rated health scores ( r  = 0.230, 95% CI [0.163, 0.297]) and with the number of comorbidities ( r  = 0.164, 95% CI [0.097, 0.233]). Distribution of treatment burden was identified (none (19,4%), low (46,6%), medium (25%), high (9%)). High treatment burden was found to be associated with having five or more long-term diseases, taking five or more medications, having anxiety or depression and living in a rural area., Conclusion: The study's findings show that the MTBQ is applicable in assessing the treatment burden of multimorbid patients in Lithuania. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that Lithuanian patients with multimorbidity have average treatment burden scores similar to or higher than participants in previous MTBQ validation studies.

Reliable treatment burden measures are needed given the aging population and the associated increase in multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Treatment burden is defined as the effort to care for one's health and the resulting impact on one's daily life. This study aimed to translate the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) for French-Canadians and assess its reliability and validity. The MTBQ was translated and tested with cognitive debriefing interviews, and the French version (MTBQ-F) was then administered 2 times among 105 participants. Reliability and validity were examined using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), Cronbach's alpha, and Spearman's correlations. The median global MTBQ-F scores were 32.69 (interquartile range [IQR]: 21.15-48.08) and 30.77 (IQR: 21.15-46.15) for the first and second administrations, respectively. Test-retest (ICC: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.63-0.81) and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.80) were good. There was a moderate positive correlation between the MTBQ-F score and the number of self-reported conditions (rho: 0.28). This valid instrument could identify patients experiencing a high treatment burden and assess the impact of interventions among them.

Background: Patients with multiple long-term conditions often face a variety of challenges arising from the requirements of their health care. Knowledge of perceived treatment burden is crucial for optimizing treatment. In this study, we aimed to create a German version of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and to evaluate its validity., Methods: The steps to translate the MTBQ included forward/back translation, cognitive interviews (n = 6) and a pilot test (n = 7). Psychometric properties of the scale were assessed in a cross-sectional survey with primary care patients aged 65 and older with at least 3 long-term conditions (n = 344). We examined the distribution of responses, dimensionality, internal reliability and construct validity., Results: Cognitive interviewing and piloting led to minor modifications and showed overall good face validity and acceptability. As expected, we observed a positively skewed response distribution for all items. Reliability was acceptable with McDonald's omega = 0.71. Factor analysis suggested one common factor while model fit indices were inconclusive. Predefined hypotheses regarding the construct validity were supported by negative associations between treatment burden and health-related quality of life, self-rated health, social support, patient activation and medication adherence, and positive associations between treatment burden and number of comorbidities. Treatment burden was found to be higher in female participants (Mdn 1  = 6.82, Mdn 2  = 4.55; U = 11,729, p = 0.001) and participants with mental health diagnoses (Mdn 1  = 9.10, Mdn 2  = 4.55; U = 3172, p = 0.024)., Conclusions: The German MTBQ exhibited good psychometric properties and can be used to assess the perceived treatment burden of patients with multimorbidity., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To validate the Danish Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and obtain a population-based evaluation of treatment burden., Design: Mixed-methods., Setting: Danish population-based survey., Participants: Translation by professional translators and an expert group. The scale was tested by 13 407 participants (aged ≥25 years) in treatment., Measures: The 10-item MTBQ was translated into Danish using forward-backward translation and used in a large population health survey. A global MTBQ score was calculated and factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha assessed dimensional structure and internal consistency reliability, respectively. Spearman's rank correlations between global MTBQ scores and scores of self-rated health, health-related quality of life and the number of long-term conditions, respectively, assessed construct validity. MTBQ scores were grouped into four categories (no, low, medium, high burden) to assess interpretability and population-based evaluation of treatment burden., Results: The scale showed high internal consistency (α=0.87), positive skewness and large floor effects. Factor analysis supported a one-dimensional structure of the scale with a three-dimensional structure as a less parsimonious alternative. The MTBQ score was negatively associated with self-rated health (r S -0.45, p<0.0001) and health-related quality of life (r S -0.46/-0.51, p<0.0001), and positively associated with the number of long-term conditions (r S 0.26, p<0.0001) and perceived stress (r S 0.44, p<0.0001). Higher treatment burden was associated with young age, male sex, high educational level, unemployment, being permanently out of work, not living with a spouse/cohabitant, living with child(ren) and long-term conditions (eg, heart attack, stroke, diabetes and mental illness)., Conclusion: The Danish MTBQ is a valid measure of treatment burden with good construct validity and high internal reliability. This is the first study to explore treatment burden at a population level and provides important evidence to policy makers and clinicians about sociodemographic groups at risk of higher treatment burden., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Treatment burden is the effort required of patients to look after their health, and the impact this has on their wellbeing. Quantitative data on treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity are sparse, and no single-item treatment burden measure exists., Aim: To determine the extent of, and associations with, high treatment burden among older adults with multimorbidity, and to explore the performance of a novel single-item treatment burden measure., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional postal survey via general practices in Dorset, UK., Method: Patients ≥55 years, living at home, with three or more long-term conditions (LTCs) were identified by practices. Treatment burden was measured using the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire. Data collected were sociodemographics, LTCs, medications, and characteristics including health literacy and financial resource. Associations with high treatment burden were investigated via logistic regression. Performance of a novel single-item measure of treatment burden was also evaluated., Results: A total of 835 responses were received (response rate 42%) across eight practices. Patients' mean age was 75 years, 55% were female ( n = 453), and 99% were white ( n = 822). Notably, 39% of patients self-reported fewer than three LTCs ( n = 325). Almost one-fifth (18%) of responders reported high treatment burden ( n = 150); making lifestyle changes and arranging appointments were particular sources of difficulty. After adjustment, limited health literacy and financial difficulty displayed strong associations with high treatment burden; more LTCs and more prescribed regular medications were also independently associated. The single-item measure discriminated moderately between high and non-high burden with a sensitivity of 89%, but a specificity of 58%., Conclusion: High treatment burden was relatively common, underlining the importance of minimising avoidable burden. More vulnerable patients, with less capacity to manage, are at greater risk of being overburdened. Further development of a single-item treatment burden measure is required., (© The Authors.)

Background: Due to an ageing population, multimorbidity is becoming more common. Treatment burden (the effort required of patients to look after their health and the impact this has on their wellbeing) is prevalent in patients with multimorbidity. The Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) is a patient-reported outcome measure of treatment burden that has been validated amongst patients with multimorbidity in the UK. The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the MTBQ into Chinese and to assess its reliability and validity in elderly patients with multimorbidity in hospital., Methods: The original English version of the MTBQ was translated into Chinese using Brislin's model of cross-culture translation. The C-MTBQ was piloted on a sample of 30 elderly patients with multimorbidity prior to being completed by 156 Chinese elderly patients with multimorbidity recruited from a hospital in Zhengzhou, China. We examined the proportion of missing data, the distribution of responses and floor and ceiling effects for each question. Factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, intraclass coefficient and Spearman's rank correlations assessed dimensional structure, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability and criterion validity, respectively., Results: The average age of the respondents was 73.5 years (range 60-99 years). The median C-MTBQ global score was 20.8 (interquartile range 12.5-29.2). Significant floor effects were seen for all items. Factor analysis supported a three-factor structure. The C-MTBQ had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient, 0.76) and test-retest reliability (the intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.944), the correlations between every item and global scores scored > 0.4. The scale content validity index(S-CVI) was 0.89, and the item level content validity index(I-CVI)was 0.83 ~ 1.00. The criterion validity was 0.875., Conclusion: The Chinese version of MTBQ showed satisfactory reliability and validity in elderly patients with multimorbidity, and could be used as a tool to measure treatment burden of elderly patients with multimorbidity in hospital.

Objective: The aim was to investigate the association between: 1) multimorbidity and high treatment burden 2) health literacy and high treatment burden, and 3) the interaction between multimorbidity and health literacy in relation to high treatment burden., Methods: We included respondents with cardiovascular disease who participated in a Danish population-based survey from 2017 (N = 2,111). Logistic regression analyses were used to study associations., Results: The study showed that multimorbid individuals with cardiovascular disease were more likely to experience a high treatment burden than individuals with cardiovascular disease only (2+ additional conditions OR 4.16 [2.80-6.18]). Also, individuals with difficulties in understanding health information were more likely to report a high treatment burden than individuals who found it easy to understand information about health (OR 9.97 [6.23-15.95]). Finally, individuals with multimorbidity and difficulties in understanding health information had markedly higher odds of experiencing a high treatment burden., Conclusion: If individuals find it difficult to understand health information, there is a risk they might feel overwhelmed by the treatment., Practice Implications: Healthcare professionals should be aware of health literacy challenges in planning medical treatment particularly for patients with both low health literacy levels and multimorbidity., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: To develop and validate a new scale to assess treatment burden (the effort of looking after one's health) for patients with multimorbidity., Design: Mixed-methods., Setting: UK primary care., Participants: Content of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) was based on a literature review and views from a patient and public involvement group. Face validity was assessed through cognitive interviews. The scale was piloted and the final version was tested in 1546 adults with multimorbidity (mean age 71 years) who took part in the 3D Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial. For each question, we examined the proportion of missing data and the distribution of responses. Factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's rank correlations and longitudinal regression assessed dimensional structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, respectively. We assessed interpretability by grouping the global MTBQ scores into zero and tertiles (>0) and comparing participant characteristics across these categories., Results: Cognitive interviews found good acceptability and content validity. Factor analysis supported a one-factor solution. Cronbach's alpha was 0.83, indicating internal consistency reliability. The MTBQ score had a positive association with a comparator treatment burden scale (r s 0.58, P<0.0001) and with self-reported disease burden (r s 0.43, P<0.0001), and a negative association with quality of life (r s -0.36, P<0.0001) and self-rated health (r s -0.36, P<0.0001). Female participants, younger participants and participants with mental health conditions were more likely to have high treatment burden scores. Changes in MTBQ score over 9-month follow-up were associated, as expected, with changes in measures of quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions, five level questionnaire) and patient-centred care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care)., Conclusion: The MTBQ is a 10-item measure of treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity that has demonstrated good content validity, construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. It is a useful research tool for assessing the impact of interventions on treatment burden., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN06180958., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Studies internationally have found that a high treatment burden is associated with several long-term conditions and poor quality of life. To translate, culturally adapt, and provide evidence of reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire for use among Arabic-speaking adults with multimorbidity. Standard guidelines for the cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures were followed. The original 10-item MTBQ was translated into Arabic by professional translators using forward-backward translation. An expert group, including the creator of the MTBQ, participated in the cultural adaptation and content validity, followed by cognitive interviewing and pilot testing. The questionnaire was then tested on 177 Arabic-speaking patients with multimorbidity recruited from community pharmacies in the United Arab Emirates. The distribution of responses, dimensionality, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity were examined. The content validity of the MTBQ-A was good (Content Validity Index = 0.94), and cognitive interviews found that the items were well understood. The scale showed positive skewness and high floor effects. Factor analysis supported a two-dimensional structure (factor loadings >0.4): factor one was named "Self-management and social support," and factor two was named "Burden of visiting health care services and health care professionals". The questionnaire had good internal consistency (α = 0.83). As predicted, a higher MTBQ score in both factors was associated with poor health-related quality of life in all dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (p values < 0.05); and negatively correlated with self-efficacy in taking medication (p < 0.01) and in learning about medication (p < 0.01). The Arabic MTBQ is a valid and reliable measure of treatment burden with good construct validity and internal consistency. This easy-to-understand questionnaire can be used to assess the perceived treatment burden among Arabic-speaking patients with multimorbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment burden represents the work patients undertake because of their health care, and the impact of that effort on the patient. Most research has focused on older adults (aged >65 years) with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) (MLTC-M), but there are now more younger adults (aged 18-65 years) living with MLTC-M and they may experience treatment burden differently. Understanding experiences of treatment burden, and identifying those most at risk of high treatment burden, are important for designing primary care services to meet their needs. Aim: To understand the treatment burden associated with MLTC-M, for people aged 18-65 years, and how primary care services affect this burden. Design & setting: Mixed-methods study in up to 33 primary care practices in two UK regions. Method: The following two approaches will be used: (i) in-depth qualitative interviews with adults living with MLTC-M (approximately 40 participants) to understand their experiences of treatment burden and the impact of primary care, with a think-aloud aspect to explore face validity of a novel short treatment burden questionnaire (STBQ) for routine clinical use in the initial 15 interviews; (ii) cross-sectional patient survey (approximately 1000 participants), with linked routine medical record data to examine the factors associated with treatment burden for people living with MLTC-M, and to test the validity of STBQ. Conclusion: This study will generate in-depth understanding of the treatment burden experienced by people aged 18-65 years living with MLTC-M, and how primary care services affect this burden. This will inform further development and testing of interventions to reduce treatment burden, and potentially influence MLTC-M trajectories and improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many UK GP practices now employ a practice pharmacist, but little is known about how GPs and pharmacists work together to optimise medications for complex patients with multimorbidity.Aim: To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on collaborative working within the context of optimising medications for patients with multimorbidity.Design and Setting: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the West of England, Northern England, and Scotland.Method: Thirteen GPs and 10 pharmacists were sampled from practices enrolled in the 3D trial (a complex intervention for people with multimorbidity). Participants' views on collaborative working were explored with interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Saturation of data was achieved with no new insights arising from later interviews.Results: GPs from surgeries that employed a pharmacist tended to value their expertise more than GPs who had not worked with one. Three key themes were identified: resources and competing priorities; responsibility; and professional boundaries. GPs valued pharmacist recommendations that were perceived to improve patient safety, as opposed to those that were technical and unlikely to benefit the patient. Pharmacists who were not known to GPs felt undervalued and wanted feedback from the GPs about their recommendations, particularly those that were not actioned.Conclusion: A good working relationship between the GP and pharmacist, where each profession understood the other's skills and expertise, was key. The importance of face-to-face meetings and feedback should be considered in future studies of interdisciplinary interventions, and by GP practices that employ pharmacists and other allied health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]