Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 417–425 | Cite as

Quality of life after pulmonary embolism: first cross-cultural evaluation of the pulmonary embolism quality-of-life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire in a Norwegian cohort

  • Mazdak TavolyEmail author
  • Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen
  • Hilde Skuterud Wik
  • Christina Roaldsnes
  • Per Morten Sandset
  • Waleed Ghanima
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the current study was to translate and test the psychometrical properties of the disease-specific pulmonary embolism quality-of-life questionnaire (PEmb-QoL).

Methods

Patients with a prior history of pulmonary embolism (PE) were identified from the thrombosis registry at Østfold Hospital Trust, Fredrikstad, Norway. All eligible patients were asked to complete the generic EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) QoL questionnaire as well as the disease-specific PEmb-QoL at baseline and after 2 weeks. Construct validity was tested using principal component factor analysis. Criterion validity was tested using Spearman’s correlation coefficients (rho) between EQ-5D and PEmb-QoL. Internal consistency reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, while test–retest reliability was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results

A total of 213 participants had complete datasets and were included in further analyses. Factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded six factors explaining 71 % of the cumulative variance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.94, indicating a very good intercorrelation of items. Of the 213 participants, 145 (68 %) completed the questionnaire a second time. The ICC ranged from 0.75 to 0.86, indicating good test–retest reliability. All factors were found significant with p values <0.001. The criterion validity of the PEmb-QoL was confirmed through good correlation with other similar health-related quality-of-life constructs in the EQ-5D.

Conclusions

Findings of the current study indicate that Norwegian version of the PEmb-QoL is both valid and reliable, thus representing an important supplement in subjective outcomes measurement among patients sustaining PE.

Keywords

PEmb-QoL HRQoL Pulmonary embolism Psychometric evaluation Disease-specific questionnaires 

References

  1. 1.
    Kearon, C. (2003). Natural history of venous thromboembolism. Circulation, 107(23 Suppl 1), I22–I30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carson, J. L., Kelley, M. A., Duff, A., Weg, J. G., Fulkerson, W. J., Palevsky, H. I., et al. (1992). The clinical course of pulmonary embolism. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(19), 1240–1245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldhaber, S. Z., Visani, L., & De Rosa, M. (1999). Acute pulmonary embolism: Clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). The Lancet, 353(9162), 1386–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pengo, V., Lensing, A. W., Prins, M. H., Marchiori, A., Davidson, B. L., Tiozzo, F., et al. (2004). Incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary embolism. New England Journal of Medicine, 350(22), 2257–2264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klok, F. A., Tijmensen, J. E., Haeck, M. L., van Kralingen, K. W., & Huisman, M. V. (2008). Persistent dyspnea complaints at long-term follow-up after an episode of acute pulmonary embolism: Results of a questionnaire. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 19(8), 625–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klok, F. A., van Kralingen, K. W., van Dijk, A. P., Heyning, F. H., Vliegen, H. W., Kaptein, A. A., et al. (2010). Quality of life in long-term survivors of acute pulmonary embolism. Chest, 138(6), 1432–1440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Es, J., den Exter, P. L., Kaptein, A. A., Andela, C. D., Erkens, P. M., Klok, F. A., et al. (2013). Quality of life after pulmonary embolism as assessed with SF-36 and PEmb-QoL. Thrombosis Research, 132(5), 500–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawker, G., Melfi, C., Paul, J., Green, R., & Bombardier, C. (1995). Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. Journal of Rheumatology, 22(6), 1193–1196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salaffi, F., Carotti, M., & Grassi, W. (2005). Health-related quality of life in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Comparison of generic and disease-specific instruments. Clinical Rheumatology, 24(1), 29–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohn, D. M., Nelis, E. A., Busweiler, L. A., Kaptein, A. A., & Middeldorp, S. (2009). Quality of life after pulmonary embolism: the development of the PEmb-QoL questionnaire. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 7(6), 1044–1046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klok, F. A., Cohn, D. M., Middeldorp, S., Scharloo, M., Buller, H. R., van Kralingen, K. W., et al. (2010). Quality of life after pulmonary embolism: Validation of the PEmb-QoL questionnaire. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 8(3), 523–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(24), 3186–3191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EuroQol, G. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life : The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hocking, R. R. (2003). Methods and applications of linear models: Regression and the analysis of variance. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 173–178.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pesudovs, K., Burr, J. M., Harley, C., & Elliott, D. B. (2007). The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optometry and Vision Science, 84(8), 663–674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Vet, H. C. W., Adèr, H. J., Terwee, C. B., & Pouwer, F. (2005). Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1203–1218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Burnam, A., Lohr, K. N., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E., et al. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Streiner, D. L. (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39(3), 135–140.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., Revicki, D. A., Moher, D., Brundage, M. D., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwartz, C. E., Andresen, E. M., Nosek, M. A., Krahn, G. L., & Measurement, R. E. P. o. H. S. (2007). Response shift theory: Important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(4), 529–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mazdak Tavoly
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  • Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen
    • 1
    • 4
  • Hilde Skuterud Wik
    • 3
  • Christina Roaldsnes
    • 1
  • Per Morten Sandset
    • 3
    • 5
  • Waleed Ghanima
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Østfold Hospital TrustFredrikstadNorway
  2. 2.Department of MedicineSahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of HaematologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Østfold University CollegeFredrikstadNorway
  5. 5.Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations