Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsiveness of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument in patients with congestive heart failure

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The Chinese Quality of Life Instrument (ChQOL) was developed as a valid generic health status instrument based on the well-established theory of health in Chinese medicine. Psychometric properties of the ChQOL were good. In the present study, the responsiveness of the ChQOL in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) were investigated and compared with two generic questionnaires, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36) and World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL-BREF), as well as one disease-specific questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF).

Methods

Thirty-nine in-patients with CHF who had undergone treatment with integrative medicine were recruited. The health status measurements were performed at enrolment and after a 4-week treatment. The following responsiveness indices were used: the effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). All patients were classified into those groups with stable measures and those groups with changes after a 4-week treatment, based upon both the doctor’s global rating of changes in heart function tests, and the patient’s global rating of changes in overall quality of life.

Results

All domains of the ChQOL showed significant improvement. In the comparison of the responsiveness indices, the ChQOL was regarded as more responsive than the WHOQOL-BREF or SF-36 utility, but it was less responsive than the MLHF.

Conclusions

The ChQOL was better in sensitivity and responsiveness for assessing congestive heart failure as a generic measure than the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF. The ChQOL is considered suitable as an outcome measure for clinical trials in patients with congestive heart failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leung KF, Liu FB, Zhao L, et al. Development and validation of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcome 2005; 3: 26. http://www.hqlo.com/content/3/1/26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhao L, Liu FB, Leung KF, et al. Reliability and validity of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument. Chin J Clin Rehabil (Chin) 2006;10(8):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick D. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Control Clin Trials 1991; 2: 142S–158S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Oga T, Nishimura K, Tsukino M, et al. A comparison of the responsiveness of different generic health status measures in patients with asthma. Quality Life Res 2003;12: 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kleber FX, Niemoller L, Doering W. Impact of converting enzyme inhibition on progression of chronic heart failure: results of the Munich mild heart failure trial. Br Heart J 1992;67:289–296.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247–263.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. The WHOQOL Group. Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a quality of life instrument (WHOQOL). Quality Life Res 1993;2(2):153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Social Sci Med 1998;46:1569–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychol Med 1998;28: 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Patients’ self-assessment of their congestive heart failure. Part 2: content, reliability and validity of a new measure, The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Heart Failure 1987;3:198–209.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Middel B, Bouma J, de Jongste M, et al. Psychometric properties of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF-Q). Clin Rehabil 2001;15(5):489–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Braunwald E, ed. Translated by Chen HZ. Cardiology. 5th ed. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2000:413–414.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hao YT, Fang JQ. The introduce and usage of WHOQOL instrument in Chinese. Modern Rehabil (Chin) 2000;4(8):1127–1129, 1145.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hao YT, Fang JQ, Li CX, et al. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL) Chinese version. Foreign Med Sci (Section of Social Medicine, Chin) 1999;16(3):118–122.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fang JQ, ed. Quality of life assessment and application. Beijing: Beijing Medical University Press, 2000:113–143.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Deyo RA. Comparative validity of the sickness impact profile and shorter-scales for functional assessment in low-back pain. Spine 1986;11:951–954.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27(3 Suppl): S178–S189.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988:531–535.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jaglal S, Lakhani Z, Schatzker J. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity measure for patients with a hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82-A:955–962.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632–642.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, et al. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992;30: 917–925.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bombardier C, Raboud J. A comparison of health-related quality of life measures for rheumatoid arthritis research. Control Clin Trials 1991;12:243S–256S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wiklund I, Karlberg J. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials: Selecting quality-of-life measures. Control Clin Trials 1991;12(4 Suppl):204S–216S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Curtis RJ, Deyo RA, Hudson LD. Health-related quality of life among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1994;49:162–170.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life-assessment, analysis and interpretation. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Son, 2000:322–348.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:239–246.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chinese Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Li Zhao  (赵 利)

  2. Department of Occupational Therapy, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China

    Kwok-fai Leung  (梁国辉)

  3. The First Affiliation Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, China

    Feng-bin Liu  (刘凤斌) & Jie Chen  (陈 洁)

  4. School of Applied Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Kelvin Chan  (陈金泉)

Authors
  1. Li Zhao  (赵 利)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kwok-fai Leung  (梁国辉)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feng-bin Liu  (刘凤斌)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jie Chen  (陈 洁)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kelvin Chan  (陈金泉)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Zhao  (赵 利).

Additional information

Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30371718)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhao, L., Leung, Kf., Liu, Fb. et al. Responsiveness of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument in patients with congestive heart failure. Chin. J. Integr. Med. 14, 173–179 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-008-0173-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-008-0173-6

Key Words

Search

Navigation