Advertisement

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Osteoarthritis Quality of Life (OAQoL) questionnaire for use in Portugal

  • João Lagoas Gomes
  • Ana Filipa Águeda
  • Alice Heaney
  • Cátia Duarte
  • Carina Lopes
  • Tiago Costa
  • José Marona
  • Santiago Rodrigues-Manica
  • Sara Maia
  • Manuela Costa
  • Jaime C. Branco
  • Stephen P. McKenna
  • Anabela Barcelos
  • Fernando M. Pimentel-Santos
Validation Studies
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent rheumatic disease and is a leading cause of decreased quality of life (QoL). The OA Quality of Life questionnaire (OAQoL) is an OA-specific patient-reported outcome measures. The aim of this study was to translate and validate the original UK English version of the Osteoarthritis Quality of Life (OAQoL) questionnaire into European Portuguese. The translation of the questionnaire was carried out according to a dual panel methodology (bilingual panel followed by lay panel). This was followed by cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) with OA patients to assess comprehension and relevance of the translated questionnaire. Finally, a validation survey was conducted to assess its psychometric properties. The Portuguese OAQoL, a comparator scale (the Nottingham Health Profile—NHP) as well as questions relating to demographic and disease information were administered to OA patients. A sub-sample of patients also completed the Portuguese OAQoL two weeks later, to assess test–retest reliability. The internal consistency, construct validity and known group validity (according to perceived OA severity) of the scale was also assessed. Both the bilingual and lay panels consisted of five individuals and no major difficulties relating to the translation process were identified. A total of ten patients with OA participated in the CDIs. The mean time to complete the questionnaire was 5 min. These interviews revealed that the Portuguese version of the OAQoL was clear, relevant and easy to complete. Finally, 53 OA patients (44 females; mean age of 67.6 years) completed the validation survey. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.87, demonstrating high internal consistency. Test–retest reliability, assessed by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, was 0.86. Moderate correlations were found with the majority of the NHP sections, providing evidence of construct validity. Significant differences in OAQoL scores were found between patients who differed according to their perceived OA severity, providing evidence of known group validity. The Portuguese version of the OAQoL is a valid and reliable questionnaire that can be used to assess QoL in OA, both in clinical practice and for research purposes.

Keywords

Quality of life Osteoarthritis Patient-reported outcome measures Degenerative arthritis Osteoarthritis Quality of Life questionnaire OAQoL 

Notes

Author contributions

João Lagoas Gomes actively participated in the translation panels, cognitive debriefing interviews, validation survey, data collection and analyses, as well as drafting and revising the manuscript and approved its final version. Ana Filipa Agueda actively participated in the translation panels, cognitive debriefing interviews, validation survey, data collection and analyses, as well as drafting and revising the manuscript and approved its final version. Alice Heaney coordinated the translation panels, performed data analysis, drafted and revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Cátia Duarte actively participated in the translation panels, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Carina Lopes recruited participants, actively participated in the validation surveys, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Tiago Costa recruited participants, actively participated in the validation surveys, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. José Marona recruited participants, actively participated in the validation surveys, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Santiago Rodrigues-Manica recruited participants, actively participated in the validation surveys, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Sara Maia performed data collection, study coordination, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Manuela Costa actively recruited participants, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Jaime C Branco recruited participants, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Stephen P McKenna coordinated and overviewed the translation panels, performed data analysis, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Anabela Barcelos actively participated in the translation panels, revised the manuscript and approved its final version. Fernando M. Pimentel-Santos actively participated and recruited participants to the cognitive debriefing interviews, validation survey, revised the manuscript and approved its final version.

Funding

This study did not receive research grants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

João Lagoas Gomes, Ana Filipa Águeda, Alice Heaney, Cátia Duarte, Carina Lopes, Tiago Costa, José Marona, Santiago Rodrigues-Manica, Sara Maia, Manuela Costa, Jaime C Branco, Stephen P McKenna, Anabela Barcelos and, Fernando M. Pimentel-Santos declare they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the cognitive debriefing interviews and in the validation survey.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. It was approved by the local ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81(9):646–656PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conaghan PG, Dickson J, Grant RL (2008) Care and management of osteoarthritis in adults: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 1 336(7642):502–503.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.608009.AD CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Litwic A, Edwards MH, Dennison EM, Cooper C (2013) Epidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis. Br Med Bull 105:185–199.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/lds038 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu CR, Millis MB, Olson SA (2014) Osteoarthritis: from palliation to prevention: AOA critical issues. J Bone Jt Surg Am 6(15):e130 96)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunter DJ, Schofield D, Callander E (2014) The individual and socioeconomic impact of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 10(7):437–441.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.44 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arden N, Nevitt MC (2006) Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 20:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pereira D, Ramos E, Branco J (2015) Osteoarthritis Acta Med Port 28(1):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Branco JC, Rodrigues AM, Gouveia N, Eusébio M, Ramiro S, Machado PM et al (2016) Prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and their impact on health-related quality of life, physical function and mental health in Portugal: results from EpiReumaPt- a national health survey. RMD Open 19 2(1):e000166.  https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laires PA, Canhão H, Rodrigues AM, Eusébio M, Gouveia M, Branco JC et al (2018) The impact of osteoarthritis on early exit from work: results from a population-based study. BMC Public Health 18(1):472.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5381-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karsdal MA, Christiansen C, Ladel C, Henriksen K, Kraus VB, Bay-Jensen AC et al (2014) Osteoarthritis–a case for personalized health care? Osteoarthr Cartil 22(1):7–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.10.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smelter E, Hochberg MC (2013) New treatments for osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 25(3):310–316.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e32835f69b4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt L (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically-important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthopaedic Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3(1)64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawker GA, Davis AM, French MR, Cibere J, Jordan JM, March L et al (2008) Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure—an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(4):409–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.015 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keenan AM, McKenna SP, Doward LC, Conaghan PG, Emery P, Tennant A et al (2008) Development and validation of a needs based quality of life instrument for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum (Arthritis Care Res) 59:841–848.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilburn J, McKenna SP, Kutlay Ş, Bender T, Braun J, Castillo-Gallego C et al (2017) Adaptation of the osteoarthritis-specific quality of life scale (the OAQoL) for use in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain and Turkey. Rheumatol Int 37(5):727–734.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3664 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swaine-Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, Thorsen H, McKenna SP (2004) Adapting quality of life instruments. Value Health 7(Suppl 1):27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL et al (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19(4):539–549.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A (2005) Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 8(2):94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K et al (1986) Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis: classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and therapeutic criteria committee of the american rheumatism association. Arthritis Rheum 29:1039–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Altman R, Alarcón G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K et al (1991) The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum 34:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Altman R, Alarcón G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K et al (1991) The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hand. Arthritis Rheum 33:1601–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E (1981) The Nottingham Health profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med A 15:221–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hagell P, Hedin PJ, Meads DM, Nyberg L, McKenna SP (2010) Effects of method of translation of patient-reported health outcome questionnaires: a randomized study of the translation of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) Instrument for Sweden. Value Health 13:424–430.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00677 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Arden NK (2014) Incidence and risk factors for clinically diagnosed knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis: influences of age, gender and osteoarthritis affecting other joints. Ann Rheum Dis;73(9):1659–1664.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203355 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rheumatology DepartmentHospital Egas Moniz (CHLO)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.CEDOC, NOVA Medical SchoolNova University of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Rheumatology DepartmentCentro Hospitalar do Baixo VougaAveiroPortugal
  4. 4.Galen Research LtdManchesterUnited Kingdom
  5. 5.Rheumatology DepartmentCentro Hospitalar e Universitário de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  6. 6.iCBR, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  7. 7.ibimed—Institute for BiomedicineUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations