Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 1245–1253 | Cite as

Measuring HRQoL following heart valve surgery: the HeartQoL questionnaire is a valid and reliable core heart disease instrument

  • Charlotte N. GrønsetEmail author
  • Lau C. Thygesen
  • Selina Kikkenborg Berg
  • Graziella Zangger
  • Marie S. Kristensen
  • Kirstine L. Sibilitz
  • Susanne S. Pedersen
  • Neil B. Oldridge
  • Ann-Dorthe Zwisler
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported health-related quality of life is a complementary healthcare outcome and important when assessing treatment efficacy. Using COSMIN methodological recommendations, this study evaluates the validity and reliability of a core heart disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire, the HeartQoL questionnaire (Danish version) in a sample of patients following heart valve surgery.

Design

This project involved a cross-sectional validity study and a test–retest reliability study.

Methods

Eligible patients completed the HeartQoL, the SF-36 health survey questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale following heart valve surgery. Construct validity was tested using a priori hypotheses. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. An independent sample of patients participated in the test–retest study and reproducibility was determined with relative [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] and absolute reliability [standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC)].

Results

Internal consistency was high with Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.87. ICC was 0.86–0.92. SEM ranged from 0.17 to 0.26 points and SDC ranged from 0.5 to 0.7 points. Construct validity was confirmed with 87% of all a priori hypotheses for predicted variables.

Conclusions

The HeartQoL questionnaire demonstrates acceptable construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reproducibility in patients following heart valve surgery. Future studies should focus on assessing the responsiveness of the HeartQoL questionnaire over time and following heart valve surgery.

Keywords

Heart valve surgery Health-related quality of life questionnaires HeartQoL Measurement properties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the respondents for their participation and Jamal Uddin for assisting in data entry.

Funding

The study was financially supported by The Danish Council for Strategic Research (10-092790), The Danish Heart Foundation, Edith and Olfert Dines Hansen Foundation (8868MT/IV), and the Research Council of the Region Zealand (12–000095/jun2014). The funding agencies had no influence on the interpretation of results.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Professor Neil Oldridge is a co-developer of the HeartQoL with no competing interest to report by the other authors.

Ethical approval

The Danish Data Protection Agency approved the survey data (File Number: 2013-41-1643) and all local confidentiality and privacy requirements were met.

Informed consent

Danish laws for register-based research do not require signed informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Supino, P. G., Borer, J. S., Preibisz, J., & Bornstein, A. (2006). The epidemiology of valvular heart disease: A growing public health problem. Heart Failure Clinics, 2(4), 379–393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hfc.2006.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nkomo, V. T., Gardin, J. M., Skelton, T. N., Gottdiener, J. S., Scott, C. G., & Enriquez-Sarano, M. (2006). Burden of valvular heart diseases: A population-based study. Lancet, 368(9540), 1005–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69208-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blauwet, L. A., & Miller, F. A. Jr. (2014). Echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic heart valves. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 57(1), 100–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2014.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berg, S. K., Zwisler, A. D., Pedersen, B. D., Haase, K., & Sibilitz, K. L. (2013). Patient experiences of recovery after heart valve replacement: Suffering weakness, struggling to resume normality. BMC Nursing, 12(1), 23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6955-12-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lapum, J., Angus, J. E., Peter, E., & Watt-Watson, J. (2011). Patients’ discharge experiences: Returning home after open-heart surgery. Heart and Lung, 40(3), 226–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2010.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anker, S. D., Agewall, S., Borggrefe, M., Calvert, M., Jaime Caro, J., Cowie, M. R., et al. (2014). The importance of patient-reported outcomes: A call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. European Heart Journal, 35(30), 2001–2009.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rumsfeld, J. S., Alexander, K. P., Goff, D. C. Jr., Graham, M. M., Ho, P. M., Masoudi, F. A., et al. (2013). Cardiovascular health: The importance of measuring patient-reported health status: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(22), 2233–2249.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182949a2e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oldridge, N., Hofer, S., McGee, H., Conroy, R., Doyle, F., & Saner, H. (2014). The HeartQoL: Part I. Development of a new core health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with ischemic heart disease. The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(1), 90–97.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312450544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oldridge, N., Hofer, S., McGee, H., Conroy, R., Doyle, F., & Saner, H. (2014). The HeartQoL: Part II. Validation of a new core health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with ischemic heart disease. The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(1), 98–106.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312450545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kristensen, M. S., Zwisler, A. D., Berg, S. K., Zangger, G., Gronset, C. N., Risom, S. S., et al. (2016). Validating the HeartQoL questionnaire in patients with atrial fibrillation. The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 23(14), 1496–1503.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487316638485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zangger, G., Zwisler, A. D., Berg, K., Kristensen, S., Gronset, M. S., Uddin, C. N., J., et al (2018). Psychometric properties of HeartQoL, a core heart disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire, in Danish implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients. The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 25(2), 142–149.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487317733074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Smedt, D., Clays, E., Hofer, S., Oldridge, N., Kotseva, K., Maggioni, A. P., et al. (2016). Validity and reliability of the HeartQoL questionnaire in a large sample of stable coronary patients: The EUROASPIRE IV Study of the European Society of Cardiology. The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 23(7), 714–721.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487315604837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lynge, E., Sandegaard, J. L., & Rebolj, M. (2011). The Danish National Patient Register. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 39(7 Suppl), 30–33.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494811401482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseasess, 40(5), 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sibilitz, K. L., Berg, S. K., Hansen, T. B., Risom, S. S., Rasmussen, T. B., Hassager, C., et al. (2013). Effect of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery (CopenHeartVR): study protocol for a randomised clinical trial. Trials, 14, 104.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vet, H. C. W. D. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide (Practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware, J. E. Jr. (2000). SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(24), 3130–3139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bjorner, J. B., Damsgaard, M. T., Watt, T., & Groenvold, M. (1998). Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1001–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bjelland, I., Dahl, A. A., Haug, T. T., & Neckelmann, D. (2002). The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 52(2), 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrmann, C. (1997). International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale–a review of validation data and clinical results. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42(1), 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you!. Educational and Psychological Measurement,  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417725127.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aguirre-Urreta, M. I., Ronkko, M., & McIntosh, C. N. (2018). A cautionary note on the finite sample behavior of maximal reliability. Psychological Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000176.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231–240.  https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hofer, S., Benzer, W., Schussler, G., von Steinbuchel, N., & Oldridge, N. B. (2003). Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease treated for angina: validity and reliability of German translations of two specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 12(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leal, A., Paiva, C., Hofer, S., Amado, J., Gomes, L., & Oldridge, N. (2005). Evaluative and discriminative properties of the Portuguese MacNew Heart Disease Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2335–2341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-7213-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vandereyt, F., Dendale, P., Vanhees, L., Roosen, J., Hofer, S., & Oldridge, N. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Flemish version of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Acta Cardiologica, 67(1), 31–39.  https://doi.org/10.2143/ac.67.1.2146563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Polit, D. F. (2014). Getting serious about test-retest reliability: A critique of retest research and some recommendations. Quality of Life Research, 23(6), 1713–1720.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0632-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee, W. L., Chinna, K., Bulgiba, A., Abdullah, K. L., Abidin, I. Z., & Hofer, S. (2016). Test-retest reliability of HeartQoL and its comparability to the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 351–357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1097-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte N. Grønset
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lau C. Thygesen
    • 2
  • Selina Kikkenborg Berg
    • 3
  • Graziella Zangger
    • 4
    • 5
  • Marie S. Kristensen
    • 2
  • Kirstine L. Sibilitz
    • 6
  • Susanne S. Pedersen
    • 7
    • 8
  • Neil B. Oldridge
    • 9
  • Ann-Dorthe Zwisler
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Occupational Therapy and PhysiotherapyCopenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.National Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.The Heart CentreCopenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletOdenseDenmark
  4. 4.The Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care (REHPA)Odense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  5. 5.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Internal Medicine, Section of CardiologyHvidovre University HospitalHvidovreDenmark
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  8. 8.Department of CardiologyOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  9. 9.College of Health SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations