Psychometric Validation of the Heart Failure Caregiver Questionnaire (HF-CQ®)
- 186 Downloads
The Heart Failure Caregiver Questionnaire (HF-CQ®) was developed to assess subjective outcomes of heart failure caregivers. The HF-CQ® comprises 21 questions on three domains, namely physical, emotional/psychological and lifestyle. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the HF-CQ®.
Patients (n = 150) with heart failure and their primary caregivers (n = 150) were recruited from 11 sites in USA. Caregivers completed the HF-CQ® and additional questionnaires, namely Caregiver Reaction Assessment, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, EuroQol-5 domain, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Patient-completed Global Impression of Severity, construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability and responsiveness of the HF-CQ® were also assessed.
In the physical and lifestyle domains, all items showed acceptable validity. No high correlations between HF-CQ® scores and other caregiver-completed instruments, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, EuroQol-5 domain or Caregiver Reaction Assessment, were reported. The intra-class correlation coefficient exceeded the threshold for reliability (>0.7) across the physical well-being (0.785), emotional/psychological (0.797), lifestyle (0.787) and total scores (0.850), indicating acceptable reliability. Internal consistency results using Cronbach’s alpha showed the total aggregate score of 0.942 to be reliable. In the responsiveness analyses, each of the three scales and the total score showed responsiveness to changes defined by the Caregiver Global Impression of Severity. The overall caregiver burden score increased with increased severity of illness in the cared-for patients.
The study provides initial evidence for the acceptable validity of the HF-CQ® as an instrument to measure heart failure caregiver burden.
KeywordsHeart Failure Patient Informal Caregiver Caregiver Burden Standardise Effect Size Caregiver Reaction Assessment
The authors are grateful to Pelle Stolt from MagliaRotta for providing writing support for this article. All authors contributed to the study design, the protocol and the analysis and intrepretation of data. Nicola Bonner, Bryan Bennet, Laura Grant performed the statistical analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Conflict of interest
Nicola Bonner, Bryan Bennett and Laura Grant work for Adelphi Values and were contracted by Novartis Pharma AG to design and run the validation study and conduct the analyses. Frederico Calado and Celine Deschaseaux are employees of Novartis Pharma AG. Anna Stromberg, Misook Chung, Marie-Louise Luttik, Tiny Jaarsma and Eldring Lewis received consulting fees as advisors on the study scientific design. There are no additional conflicts of interest.
This study was reviewed and approved by the Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board (Approval Number ADE1-13-493).
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2129–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.American Heart Association. Classes of heart failure 2016. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HeartFailure/AboutHeartFailure/Classes-of-Heart-Failure_UCM_306328_Article.jsp#. Accessed 15 Nov 1999.
- 6.Hobbs FD, Kenkre JE, Roalfe AK, et al. Impact of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction on quality of life: a cross-sectional study comparing common chronic cardiac and medical disorders and a representative adult population. Eur Heart J. 2002;23(23):1867–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Luttik ML, Blaauwbroek A, Dijker A, Jaarsma T. Living with heart failure: partner perspectives. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2007;22(2):131–7.Google Scholar
- 9.Stamp KD, Dunbar SB, Clark PC, et al. Family context influences psychological outcomes of depressive symptoms and emotional quality of life in patients with heart failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014;29(6):517–27.Google Scholar
- 21.Feinberg LAH. Assessing family caregiver needs: policy and practice considerations. AARP Public Policy Institute fact sheet. 2012. http://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AARP-caregiver-fact-sheet.pdf.
- 22.US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration. 2009, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
- 25.Margaret C, Reilly M. Development of the WPAI. New York: Reilly Associates; 2008. http://www.reillyassociates.net/WPAI_General.html. Accessed 2 Jun 2015.
- 31.Rubin A. Research methods for social work. Belmont (CA): Brooks/Cole Cengage; 2011.Google Scholar
- 33.Luttik ML, Jaarsma T, Veeger N, et al. Caregiver burden in partners of heart failure patients; limited influence of disease severity. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(6–7):695–701.Google Scholar
- 35.Ware J, Gandek B, Rogers B, Reese P. MAP-R for Windows: multitrait/multi-item analysis program-revised user’s guide. Boston: Health Assessment Lab, Inc.; 1994.Google Scholar
- 36.Cappelleri J. Patient-reported outcomes: measurement, implementation and interpretation. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2014.Google Scholar
- 37.Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Geneste B. Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health. 1999;2(2):113–27.Google Scholar
- 38.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar
- 40.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1977.Google Scholar