Quality of Life Research

, Volume 9, Issue 7, pp 873–882 | Cite as

A new treatment satisfaction measure for asthmatics: A validation study

  • Susan D. Mathias
  • Elisabeth H. Warren
  • Hilary H. Colwell
  • Jennifer C. Y. Sung


The Patient Satisfaction with Asthma Medication (PSAM) questionnaire was developed because no treatment satisfaction questionnaire could be identified that was comprehensive yet brief enough for use in clinical trials. Adult moderate asthmatics residing in Canada using an inhaled medication (either salmeterol, formoterol, or albuterol) self-administered the questionnaire, which also included the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). A total of 53 asthmatics (70% female, 45% married, mean age: 47 years) completed the questionnaire. Using variable clustering, four PSAM scales were identified: Inhaler Properties, Comparison with Other Medications, Overall Perception of Medication, and Relief. Internal-consistency reliability provided evidence of reliability and lack of redundancy (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.82–0.88). Test-retest reliability was acceptable (ICC values at or near 0.70). As expected, interscale PSAM correlations were moderate to high; correlations between the PSAM and the AQLQ were low to moderate. To assess known groups validity, respondents were categorized by self-reported degree of asthma control: ‘very well controlled’ ‘somewhat controlled’, and ‘not well controlled’. Significant between-groups differences were found on all PSAM scales except Inhaler Properties. Patients categorized as ‘very well controlled’ tended to report highest PSAM scale scores. The PSAM questionnaire demonstrated reliability and validity in moderate asthmatics. Responsiveness should be assessed in future, prospective studies.

Asthma Quality of life Questionnaire Satisfaction Validation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McFadden ER Jr. Diseases of the respiratory system: Asthma. In: Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Isselbacher KJ, et al. (eds), Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 14th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998: 1419–1426.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Academy of Allergy and Immunology website. Accessed 14 November 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Juniper E, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE. Measuring quality of life in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 147: 832–838.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spilker B. Methods of assessing and improving patient compliance in clinical trials. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B (eds), Patient Compliance in Medical Practice and Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 205–219.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horn CR, Clark THH, Cochrane GM. Compliance with inhaled therapy and morbidity from asthma. Respir Med 1990; 84: 67–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahajan P, Ojamoto L. Patient satisfaction with the Diskhaler and the Diskus Inhaler, a new multidose powder delivery system for the treatment of asthma. Clin Ther 1997; 19(5): 1126–1134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Palen J, Klein JJ, Kerkhoff AHM, van Herwaarden CLA. Evaluation of the effectiveness of four different inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1995; 50: 1183–1187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simons FE. A comparison of beclomethasone, salmeterol, and placebo in children with asthma. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1659–1665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osterman K, Stahl E, Kallen A. Bricanyl Turbuhaler in the treatment of asthma: A six week multi-centre study carried out in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Eur Respir J 1991; 4: 175–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boe J, Stiksa G, Svensson K, Asbrink E. New method of evaluating patient preference for different inhalation delivery systems. Ann Allergy 1992; 68: 255–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report II: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. February 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weaver M, Patrick DL, Markson LE, Martin D, Frederic I, Berger M. Issues in the measurement of satisfaction with treatment. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3(4): 579–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care 1986; 24(1): 65–74.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cronbach LJ. Coeffcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick D. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health state measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials. 1991; 12(suppl 4): 142S–158S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scientific Advisory Committee. Instrument review criteria. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin 1995, I–IV.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leidy NK, Coughlin C. Psychometric performance of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire in a US sample. Qual Life Res 1998; 7(2): 127–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan D. Mathias
    • 1
  • Elisabeth H. Warren
    • 1
  • Hilary H. Colwell
    • 1
  • Jennifer C. Y. Sung
    • 2
  1. 1.The Lewin GroupSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.East HanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations