End-of-life measures in Huntington disease: HDQLIFE Meaning and Purpose, Concern with Death and Dying, and End of Life Planning
Background and purpose
Huntington disease (HD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. There are no HD-specific measures to assess for end-of-life (EOL) preferences that have been validated for clinical use. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate reliability and validity of three HD-specific EOL measures for use in and clinical research settings.
We examined internal reliability, test–retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, convergent and discriminant validity, known groups’ validity, measurement error, and change over time to systematically examine reliability and validity of the HDQLIFE EOL measures.
Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were > 0.70. The measures were generally free of floor and ceiling effects and measurement error was minimal. Convergent and discriminant validity were consistent with well-known constructs in the field. Hypotheses for known groups validity were partially supported (there were generally group differences for the EOL planning measures, but not for meaning and purpose or concern with death and dying). Measurement error was acceptable and there were minimal changes over time across the EOL measures.
Results support the clinical utility of the HDQLIFE EOL measures in persons with HD.
KeywordsHuntingon disease End of life HDQLIFE Validity Reliability
Work on this manuscript was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS077946) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR000433). In addition, a portion of this study sample was collected in conjunction with the Predict-HD study. The Predict-HD study was supported by the NIH, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS040068), the NIH, Center for Inherited Disease Research (provided supported for sample phenotyping), and the CHDI Foundation (award to the University of Iowa). We thank the University of Iowa, the Investigators and Coordinators of this study, the study participants, the National Research Roster for Huntington Disease Patients and Families, the Huntington Study Group, and the Huntington’s Disease Society of America. We acknowledge the assistance of Jeffrey D. Long, Hans J. Johnson, Jeremy H. Bockholt, Roland Zschiegner, and Jane S. Paulsen. We also acknowledge Roger Albin, Kelvin Chou, and Henry Paulsen for the assistance with participant recruitment. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. HDQLIFE Site Investigators and Coordinators: Noelle Carlozzi, Praveen Dayalu, Stephen Schilling, Amy Austin, Matthew Canter, Siera Goodnight, Jennifer Miner, Nicholas Migliore (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI); Jane Paulsen, Nancy Downing, Isabella DeSoriano, Courtney Shadrick, Amanda Miller (University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA); Kimberly Quaid, Melissa Wesson (Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN); Christopher Ross, Gregory Churchill, Mary Jane Ong (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD); Susan Perlman, Brian Clemente, Aaron Fisher, Gloria Obialisi, Michael Rosco (University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA); Michael McCormack, Humberto Marin, Allison Dicke, judy Rokeach (Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ); Joel S. Perlmutter, Stacey Barton, Shineeka Smith (Washington University, St. Louis, MO); Martha Nance, Pat Ede (Struthers Parkinson’s Center); Stephen Rao, Anwar Ahmed, Michael Lengen, Lyla Mourany, Christine Reece (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH); Michael Geschwind, Joseph Winer (University of California – San Francisco, San Francisco, CA), David Cella, Richard Gershon, Elizabeth Hahn, Jin-Shei Lai (Northwestern University, Chicago, IL).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Carlozzi, N.E. is supported by grant funding from the NIH, the Neilsen Foundation, and CHDI, as well as a government contract from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services. She has previously provided patient-reported outcome measurement selection and application consultation for Teva Pharmaceuticals. She declares no conflicts of interest. Boileau, N.R. is supported by grant funding from the NIH, the Neilsen Foundation and CHDI. He declares no conflicts of interest. Paulsen, J.S. currently has research grants from the NIH; she is also supported by grant funding from NIH, NINDS, and CHDI; she declares no conflicts of interest. Perlmutter, J.S. currently has funding from the NIH, HDSA, CHDI, and APDA. He has received honoraria from the University of Rochester, American Academy of Neurology, Movement Disorders Society, Toronto Western Hospital, St. Lukes Hospital in St Louis, Emory U, Penn State, Alberta innovates, Indiana Neurological Society, Parkinson Disease Foundation, Columbia University, St. Louis University, Harvard University and the University of Michigan; he declares no conflicts of interest. Lai J.-S. currently has research grants from the NIH; she declares no conflicts of interest. Hahn, E.A. currently has research grants from the NIH; she is also supported by grant funding from the NIH and PCORI, and by research contracts from Merck and EMMES; she declares no conflicts of interest. McCormack, M.K. currently has grants from the NJ Department of Health; he declares no conflicts of interest. Nance, M.A. declares no conflicts of interest. Cella, D. receives grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and reports that he has no conflicts of interest. Barton, S.K. is supported by grant funding from the Huntington’s Disease Society of America, CHDI Foundation and the NIH. She declares no conflicts of interest. Downing, N.R. is supported by grant funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration and declares no conflicts of interest.
All data has been collected in accordance with local institutional review boards.
Study participants provided informed consent prior to the participation in study activities.
- 1.The Huntington's Disease Collaborative Research Group (1993) A novel gene containing a trinucleotide repeat that is expanded and unstable on Huntington's disease chromosomes. Cell 72:971–983Google Scholar
- 2.Ross CA, Margolis RL, Rosenblatt A, Ranen NG, Becher MW, Aylward E (1997) Huntington disease and the related disorder, dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy (DRPLA). Medicine (Baltimore) 76(5):305–338Google Scholar
- 4.Carlozzi NE, Tulsky DS (2013) Identification of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to individuals with Huntington disease. J Health Psychol 18(2):212–225Google Scholar
- 5.Carlozzi NE, Downing NR, McCormack MK et al (2016) New measures to capture end of life concerns in Huntington disease: meaning and purpose and concern with death and dying from HDQLIFE (a patient-reported outcomes measurement system). Qual Life Res 25:2403–2415Google Scholar
- 6.Carlozzi NE, Hahn EA, Frank SA et al (2018) A new measure for end of life planning, preparation, and preferences in Huntington disease: HDQLIFE end of life planning. J Neurol 265(1):98–107Google Scholar
- 7.Booij SJ, Tibben A, Engberts DP, Marinus J, Roos RA (2014) Thinking about the end of life: a common issue for patients with Huntington's disease. J Neurol 261(11):2184–2191Google Scholar
- 8.Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W (2010) The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 340:c1345Google Scholar
- 9.Voogt E, van der Heide A, Rietjens JA et al (2005) Attitudes of patients with incurable cancer toward medical treatment in the last phase of life. J Clin Oncol 23(9):2012–2019Google Scholar
- 10.Lyon ME, Jacobs S, Briggs L, Cheng YI, Wang J (2014) A longitudinal, randomized, controlled trial of advance care planning for teens with cancer: anxiety, depression, quality of life, advance directives, spirituality. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Society Adolesc Med 54(6):710–717Google Scholar
- 11.Carlozzi NE, Schilling SG, Lai JS et al (2016) HDQLIFE: development and assessment of health-related quality of life in Huntington disease (HD). Qual Life Res 25(10):2441–2455Google Scholar
- 12.Paulsen JS, Langbehn DR, Stout JC et al (2008) Detection of Huntington's disease decades before diagnosis: the Predict-HD study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 79(8):874–880Google Scholar
- 13.Jackson WT, Ta N (1998) Effective serial measurement of cognitive orientation in rehabilitation: the orientation log. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79(6):718–720Google Scholar
- 14.Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, Bass M, Cella D (2010) The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas 11(3):304–314Google Scholar
- 15.Zhang Y, Long JD, Mills JA, Warner JH, Lu WJ, Paulsen JS (2011) Indexing disease progression at study entry with individuals at-risk for Huntington disease. Am J Med Genet B 156B(7):751–763Google Scholar
- 16.Carlozzi N, Hahn EA, Frank S et al (2018) A new measure for end of life planning, preparation, and preferences in Huntington disease: HDQLIFE end of life planning. J Neurol 265:98–107Google Scholar
- 17.Choi SW, Podrabsky T, McKinney N (2012) Firestar-D: computerized adaptive testing simulation program for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psych Meas 36(1):67–68Google Scholar
- 18.Cella D, Lai JS, Nowinski CJ et al (2012) Neuro-QOL Brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology 78(23):1860–1867Google Scholar
- 19.Cella D, Nowinski C, Peterman A et al (2011) The Neurology Quality of Life Measurement (Neuro-QOL) initiative. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92(Suppl 1):S28–S36Google Scholar
- 20.Cella D, Riley W, Stone A et al (2010) The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol 63(11):1179–1194Google Scholar
- 21.Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N et al (2007) The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first 2 years. Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11Google Scholar
- 22.Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B (2002) How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1), Quality Metrics, LincolnGoogle Scholar
- 23.Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (1996) reliability and consistency. Mov Disord 11(2):136–142Google Scholar
- 24.SAS Institute (2013) SAS 9.4 language reference concepts [computer program]. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
- 25.Fisher RA (1922) On the interpretation of χ 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. J Roy Stat Soc 85(1):8Google Scholar
- 26.Cronbach LG (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334Google Scholar
- 27.Andresen E (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(12 Suppl 2):S15–20Google Scholar
- 28.Cramer D, Howitt DL (2004) The Sage dictionary of statistics. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- 29.Marder K, Zhao H, Myers RH et al (2000) Rate of functional decline in Huntington's disease. Neurology 54(2):452Google Scholar
- 30.Cohen R, Swerdlik M (2010) Psychological testing and assessment. McGraw-Hill, Burr RidgeGoogle Scholar
- 31.Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Med Teacher 33(6):447–458Google Scholar
- 32.Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19(1):231–240Google Scholar
- 33.Flansbjer U, Holmback AM, Downham D, Patten C, Lexell J (2005) Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med 37:75–82Google Scholar
- 34.Liaw L, Hsieh C, Lo S, Lee S, Lin J (2008) The relative and absolute reliability of two balance performance measures in chronic stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 30(9):656–661Google Scholar
- 35.Forrest CB, Bevans KB, Tucker C et al (2012) Commentary: the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS-Æ) for children and youth: application to pediatric psychology. J Pediatr Psychol 37(6):614–621Google Scholar
- 36.Jones CM, Baker JN, Keesey RM et al (2018) Importance ratings on patient-reported outcome items for survivorship care: comparison between pediatric cancer survivors, parents, and clinicians. Qual Life Res 27(7):1877–1884Google Scholar
- 37.Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42Google Scholar
- 38.Hulur G, Hertzog C, Pearman A, Ram N, Gerstorf D (2014) Longitudinal associations of subjective memory with memory performance and depressive symptoms: between-person and within-person perspectives. Psychol Aging 29(4):814–827Google Scholar
- 39.Schilling OK, Wahl HW, Wiegering S (2013) Affective development in advanced old age: analyses of terminal change in positive and negative affect. Dev Psychol 49(5):1011–1020Google Scholar
- 40.Vogel N, Schilling OK, Wahl HW, Beekman AT, Penninx BW (2013) Time-to-death-related change in positive and negative affect among older adults approaching the end of life. Psychol Aging 28(1):128–141Google Scholar
- 41.Cohen-Mansfield J, Skornick-Bouchbinder M, Brill S (2018) Trajectories of end of life: a systematic review. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 73(4):564–572Google Scholar
- 42.van Wijmen MPS, Pasman HRW, Twisk JWR, Widdershoven GAM, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD (2018) Stability of end-of-life preferences in relation to health status and life-events: a cohort study with a 6-year follow-up among holders of an advance directive. PLoS ONE 13(12):e0209315Google Scholar
- 43.Auriemma CL, Nguyen CA, Bronheim R et al (2014) Stability of end-of-life preferences: a systematic review of the evidence. JAMA Int Medi 174(7):1085–1092Google Scholar
- 44.Wittink MN, Morales KH, Meoni LA et al (2008) Stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment after 3 years of follow-up: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Arch Intern Med 168(19):2125–2130Google Scholar
- 45.Vehling S, Malfitano C, Shnall J et al (2017) A concept map of death-related anxieties in patients with advanced cancer. BMJ Support Palliat 7(4):427–434Google Scholar
- 46.Neel C, Lo C, Rydall A, Hales S, Rodin G (2015) Determinants of death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer. BMJ Support Palliat 5(4):373–380Google Scholar
- 47.Chopik WJ (2017) Death across the lifespan: age differences in death-related thoughts and anxiety. Death Stud 41(2):69–77Google Scholar
- 48.Cicirelli VG (2001) Personal meanings of death in older adults and young adults in relation to their fears of death. Death Stud 25(8):663–683Google Scholar
- 49.Reidick O, Schilling OK, Wahl H, Oswald F (2010) Attitudes towards dying and death in very old age: acceptance rather than anxiety? Gerontologist 50:390–390Google Scholar
- 50.Fortner BV, Neimeyer RA (1999) Death anxiety in older adults: a quantitative review. Death Stud 23(5):387–411Google Scholar
- 51.Thompson JC, Snowden JS, Craufurd D, Neary D (2002) Behavior in Huntington's disease: dissociating cognition-based and mood-based changes. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 14(1):37–43Google Scholar
- 52.Fritz NE, Boileau NR, Stout JC et al (2018) Relationships among apathy, health-related quality of life, and function in Huntington's disease. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 30:194–201Google Scholar
- 53.Rosenblatt A, Abbott MH, Gourley LM et al (2003) Predictors of neuropathological severity in 100 patients with Huntington's disease. Ann Neurol 54(4):488–493Google Scholar
- 54.Moss DJH, Pardinas AF, Langbehn D et al (2017) Identification of genetic variants associated with Huntington's disease progression: a genome-wide association study. Lancet Neurol 16(9):701–711Google Scholar