Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure.

Susan Pressler, Neil B. Oldridge, George J. Eckert, Jennifer L. Embree, Sherry Browning, Nan Hou, Michelle Chui, Melissa Deer, Michael Murray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

123 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although numerous health-related quality-of-life instruments are available to measure patients' quality of life, few studies have compared these measures directly to determine how they function in the same group of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to empirically compare psychometric properties of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the General Health Survey Short-form-12 (SF-12). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 211 patients with heart failure completed baseline questionnaires; 165 patients completed the entire 26-week study. METHODS: Patients completed telephone interviews at baseline and at 4, 8, and 26 weeks after baseline. To compare mode of administration, a subset of patients (n = 173) completed face-to-face and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patients reported low-to-moderate health-related quality-of-life overall. Reliability of the three instruments was satisfactory. Responsiveness to changing condition, as evaluated by analysis of variance, receiver operating curve characteristics, and the minimal clinically important difference method, indicated that the CHQ and LHFQ were more responsive to changing conditions than the SF-12. No major differences were noted between the scores of the face-to-face interviews and the baseline telephone interviews. The LHFQ and SF-12 were easier and took less time to administer than the CHQ. CONCLUSIONS: While all three instruments were reliable and valid, the CHQ and LHFQ were more sensitive than the SF-12 in detecting clinically important changes over time.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)207-216
Number of pages10
JournalNursing Research
Volume52
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 2003

Fingerprint

Heart Failure
Quality of Life
Interviews
Surveys and Questionnaires
Health Surveys
Psychometrics
ROC Curve
Analysis of Variance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Pressler, S., Oldridge, N. B., Eckert, G. J., Embree, J. L., Browning, S., Hou, N., ... Murray, M. (2003). Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure. Nursing Research, 52(4), 207-216.

Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure. / Pressler, Susan; Oldridge, Neil B.; Eckert, George J.; Embree, Jennifer L.; Browning, Sherry; Hou, Nan; Chui, Michelle; Deer, Melissa; Murray, Michael.

In: Nursing Research, Vol. 52, No. 4, 07.2003, p. 207-216.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pressler, S, Oldridge, NB, Eckert, GJ, Embree, JL, Browning, S, Hou, N, Chui, M, Deer, M & Murray, M 2003, 'Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure.', Nursing Research, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 207-216.
Pressler S, Oldridge NB, Eckert GJ, Embree JL, Browning S, Hou N et al. Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure. Nursing Research. 2003 Jul;52(4):207-216.
Pressler, Susan ; Oldridge, Neil B. ; Eckert, George J. ; Embree, Jennifer L. ; Browning, Sherry ; Hou, Nan ; Chui, Michelle ; Deer, Melissa ; Murray, Michael. / Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure. In: Nursing Research. 2003 ; Vol. 52, No. 4. pp. 207-216.
@article{c792ade1067040b5af7ac39a82e3705b,
title = "Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure.",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Although numerous health-related quality-of-life instruments are available to measure patients' quality of life, few studies have compared these measures directly to determine how they function in the same group of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to empirically compare psychometric properties of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the General Health Survey Short-form-12 (SF-12). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 211 patients with heart failure completed baseline questionnaires; 165 patients completed the entire 26-week study. METHODS: Patients completed telephone interviews at baseline and at 4, 8, and 26 weeks after baseline. To compare mode of administration, a subset of patients (n = 173) completed face-to-face and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patients reported low-to-moderate health-related quality-of-life overall. Reliability of the three instruments was satisfactory. Responsiveness to changing condition, as evaluated by analysis of variance, receiver operating curve characteristics, and the minimal clinically important difference method, indicated that the CHQ and LHFQ were more responsive to changing conditions than the SF-12. No major differences were noted between the scores of the face-to-face interviews and the baseline telephone interviews. The LHFQ and SF-12 were easier and took less time to administer than the CHQ. CONCLUSIONS: While all three instruments were reliable and valid, the CHQ and LHFQ were more sensitive than the SF-12 in detecting clinically important changes over time.",
author = "Susan Pressler and Oldridge, {Neil B.} and Eckert, {George J.} and Embree, {Jennifer L.} and Sherry Browning and Nan Hou and Michelle Chui and Melissa Deer and Michael Murray",
year = "2003",
month = "7",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "207--216",
journal = "Nursing Research",
issn = "0029-6562",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of quality of life measures in heart failure.

AU - Pressler, Susan

AU - Oldridge, Neil B.

AU - Eckert, George J.

AU - Embree, Jennifer L.

AU - Browning, Sherry

AU - Hou, Nan

AU - Chui, Michelle

AU - Deer, Melissa

AU - Murray, Michael

PY - 2003/7

Y1 - 2003/7

N2 - BACKGROUND: Although numerous health-related quality-of-life instruments are available to measure patients' quality of life, few studies have compared these measures directly to determine how they function in the same group of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to empirically compare psychometric properties of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the General Health Survey Short-form-12 (SF-12). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 211 patients with heart failure completed baseline questionnaires; 165 patients completed the entire 26-week study. METHODS: Patients completed telephone interviews at baseline and at 4, 8, and 26 weeks after baseline. To compare mode of administration, a subset of patients (n = 173) completed face-to-face and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patients reported low-to-moderate health-related quality-of-life overall. Reliability of the three instruments was satisfactory. Responsiveness to changing condition, as evaluated by analysis of variance, receiver operating curve characteristics, and the minimal clinically important difference method, indicated that the CHQ and LHFQ were more responsive to changing conditions than the SF-12. No major differences were noted between the scores of the face-to-face interviews and the baseline telephone interviews. The LHFQ and SF-12 were easier and took less time to administer than the CHQ. CONCLUSIONS: While all three instruments were reliable and valid, the CHQ and LHFQ were more sensitive than the SF-12 in detecting clinically important changes over time.

AB - BACKGROUND: Although numerous health-related quality-of-life instruments are available to measure patients' quality of life, few studies have compared these measures directly to determine how they function in the same group of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to empirically compare psychometric properties of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the General Health Survey Short-form-12 (SF-12). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 211 patients with heart failure completed baseline questionnaires; 165 patients completed the entire 26-week study. METHODS: Patients completed telephone interviews at baseline and at 4, 8, and 26 weeks after baseline. To compare mode of administration, a subset of patients (n = 173) completed face-to-face and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patients reported low-to-moderate health-related quality-of-life overall. Reliability of the three instruments was satisfactory. Responsiveness to changing condition, as evaluated by analysis of variance, receiver operating curve characteristics, and the minimal clinically important difference method, indicated that the CHQ and LHFQ were more responsive to changing conditions than the SF-12. No major differences were noted between the scores of the face-to-face interviews and the baseline telephone interviews. The LHFQ and SF-12 were easier and took less time to administer than the CHQ. CONCLUSIONS: While all three instruments were reliable and valid, the CHQ and LHFQ were more sensitive than the SF-12 in detecting clinically important changes over time.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042130323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042130323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 207

EP - 216

JO - Nursing Research

JF - Nursing Research

SN - 0029-6562

IS - 4

ER -