Assessing the quality of life of people with chronic wounds by using the cross-culturally valid and revised Wound-QoL questionnaire.
item response theory
patient burden
psychometric performance
wound care
Journal
Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
ISSN: 1524-475X
Titre abrégé: Wound Repair Regen
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9310939
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
revised:
03
12
2020
received:
15
06
2020
accepted:
22
12
2020
pubmed:
18
2
2021
medline:
1
2
2022
entrez:
17
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Wound-QoL is an often used reliable and valid measure, originally developed in Germany. It has been sequentially translated and validated for other languages/countries, for the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic wounds. However, a study from the United States postulated its benefits from further adaptations. Furthermore, some patients struggled to provide an answer for some of the items. We aimed to test the cross-cultural structure and psychometric performance of the questionnaire to suggest necessary revisions. This cross-sectional analysis of existing data sets included 1185 patients from Germany, the US, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Israel. Patients in the U.S. Wound Registry completed the Wound-QoL during routine care. Different studies comprised the data collection in the other countries. Almost half of the patients were women (48.4%). Furthermore, 42.6% were diagnosed with leg ulcers. Their average age was 66 years. We used a confirmatory factor analysis and an unconstrained graded response model. We revised and shortened the Wound-QoL from 17 to 14 items. In addition, we supported the cross-cultural metric invariance of the revised Wound-QoL questionnaire. The new version with 14 items and three dimensions revealed good psychometric properties with Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.913 for the total score, and 0.709-0.907 for different dimensions. Furthermore, we provided strict invariance for different clinical variables. In conclusion, the revised Wound-QoL is a reliable and cross-cultural instrument to measure the HRQoL on patients with chronic wounds. Future studies should analyse the revised Wound-QoL for convergent validity with generic HRQoL questionnaires as well as for determining its sensitivity to clinical change.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
452-459Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society.
Références
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Decision memo for electrostimulation for wounds (CAG-00068R). Medicare Coverage Database. Baltimore, MD: CMS; 2003.
Järbrink K, Ni G, Sönnergren H, et al. The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0400-8.
Heyer K, Herberger K, Protz K, Glaeske G, Augustin M. Epidemiology of chronic wounds in Germany: Analysis of statutory health insurance data. Wound Repair Regen. 2016;24(2):434-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12387.
Graham ID, Harrison MB, Nelson EA, Lorimer K, Fisher A. Prevalence of lower-limb ulceration: a systematic review of prevalence studies. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2003;16(6):305-316. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334-200311000-00013.
Nussbaum SR, Carter MJ, Fife CE, Haught R, Nusgart M, Cartwright D. An Economic evaluation of the impact, cost, and medicare policy implications of chronic nonhealing wounds. Value Health. 2018;21(1):27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.007.
Lindholm C, Bjellerup M, Christensen OB. Zederfeldt B. A demographic survey of leg and foot ulcer patients in a defined population. Acta Derm Venereol. 1992;72(3):227-230.
Nelzen O, Bergqvist D, Lindhagen A. The prevalence of chronic lower-limb ulceration has been underestimated: results of a validated population questionnaire. Br J Surg. 1996;83(2):255-258.
Gamus A, Kaufman H, Keren E, Brandin G, Peles D, Chodick G. Validation of "Wound QoL" Hebrew version disease-specific questionnaire for patients with lower extremity ulcerations. Int Wound J. 2018;15(4):600-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12903.
Cole-King A, Harding KG. Psychological factors and delayed healing in chronic wounds. Psychosom Med. 2001;63(2):216-220. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200103000-00004.
Flett R, Harcourt B, Alpass F. Psychosocial aspects of chronic lower leg ulceration in the elderly. West J Nursing Res. 1994;16(2):183-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394599401600205.
Augustin M. Cumulative life course impairment in chronic wounds. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2013;44:125-129. https://doi.org/10.1159/000350789.
Kapp S, Miller C, Santamaria N. The quality of life of people who have chronic wounds and who self-treat. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(1-2):182-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13870.
Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life. The assessment, analysis, and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. 3rd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2016.
Koller M, Neugebauer EAM, Augustin M, et al. Die Erfassung von Lebensqualität in der Versorgungsforschung - konzeptuelle, methodische und strukturelle Voraussetzungen. Gesundheitswesen. 2009;71(12):864-872. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1239516.
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. 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. 2010;63(11):1179-1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.
Blome C, Baade K, Debus ES, Price P, Augustin M. The "Wound-QoL": a short questionnaire measuring quality of life in patients with chronic wounds based on three established disease-specific instruments. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(4):504-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12193.
Augustin M, Conde Montero E, Zander N, et al. Validity and feasibility of the wound-QoL questionnaire on health-related quality of life in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(5):852-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12583.
Sommer R, Augustin M, Hampel-Kalthoff C, Blome C. The Wound-QoL questionnaire on quality of life in chronic wounds is highly reliable. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(4):730-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12578.
Amesz SF, Klein TM, Meulendijks AM, et al. A translation and preliminary validation of the Dutch Wound-QoL questionnaire. BMC Dermatology. 2020;20(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12895-020-00101-2.
Sommer R, von Stülpnagel CC, Fife CE, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the U.S. English Wound-QoL questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in people with chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2020;28:609-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12837.
Conde Montero E, Sommer R, Augustin M, et al. Validation of the Spanish Wound-QoL Questionnaire. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas. 2021;112(1):44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2020.09.007.
Fagerdahl A-M, Bergstrom G. Translation and validation of a wound-specific, quality-of-life instrument (The Wound-QoL) in a Swedish population. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2018;64(5):40-46.
Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation and refinement. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1 Suppl):5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0.
Sommer R, Hampel-Kalthoff C, Kalthoff B, et al. Differences between patient- and proxy-reported HRQoL using the Wound-QoL. Wound Repair Regen. 2018;26(3):293-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12662.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York, London: Guilford Press; 2016.
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluation the fit of structural equation models: test of significange and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Meth Psychol Res. 2003;8(2):23-74.
Hu L-t, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1-55.
Fischer R, Karl JAA. Primer to (Cross-Cultural) Multi-Group Invariance Testing Possibilities in R. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507.
Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struc Equ Modeling. 2007;14(3):464-504.
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struc Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2):233-255.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.
Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. ETS Res Bull Ser. 1968;1968(1):i-169.
García-Pérez MA. An analysis of (dis)ordered categories, thresholds, and crossings in difference and divide-by-total irt models for ordered responses. Span J Psychol. 2017;20:E10. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.11.
Tsutakawa RK, Johnson JC. The effect of uncertainty of item parameter estimation on ability estimates. Psychometrika. 1990;55(2):371-390.
Reise SP, Yu J. Parameter recovery in the graded response model using multilog. J Educ Meas. 1990;27(2):133-144.
Weber JC, Lamb DR. Statistics and research in physical education. Saint Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby, Inc.; 1970.
Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(6):593-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1.
Yoon M, Lai MHC. Testing factorial invariance with unbalanced samples. Struc Equ Modeling. 2018;25(2):201-213.
Hox JJ, Maas CJM. The accuracy of multilevel structural equation modeling with pseudobalanced groups and small samples. Struc Equ Modeling. 2001;8(2):157-174.
Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher MP, Saver BG. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample. Med Care. 2002;40(1):52-59. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200201000-00007.