The development and validation of the major life changing decision profile (MLCDP)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Andrew Y Finlay³  Vincent Piguet³  Ramsey Sabit⁵  Richard H Moore⁸  Ian R Ketchell⁷  Sharon M Jones⁶  Julian P Halcox⁴  Lindsay George⁹  Charlotte E Bolton¹  Sam S Salek²  Zaheer U Bhatti³ 

[1] Current address: Nottingham Respiratory Research Unit, University of Nottingham, City Hospital, Clinical Sciences Building, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK;Centre for Socioeconomic Research, Cardiff School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Redwood Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3NB, UK;Department of Dermatology and Wound Healing, Glamorgan House, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK;Welsh Heart Research Institute, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK;Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Llandough, Penlan Road, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan CF64 2XX, UK;Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK;Adult Cystic Fibrosis Services, University Hospital Llandough, Penlan Road, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan, CF64 2XX, UK;Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK;Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, University Hospital Llandough, Penlan Road, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan CF64 2XX, UK

关键词: Psychometric properties;    Quality of life;    Life decisions;    Life course;    Life events;    Long-term impact;    Chronic disease impact;    MLCDP;    Major life changing decision profile;    MLCD;    Major life changing decisions;   

Others  :  823702
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-78

 received in 2012-10-03, accepted in 2013-04-16,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Chronic diseases may influence patients taking major life changing decisions (MLCDs) concerning for example education, career, relationships, having children and retirement. A validated measure is needed to evaluate the impact of chronic diseases on MLCDs, improving assessment of their life-long burden. The aims of this study were to develop a validated questionnaire, the “Major Life Changing Decision Profile” (MLCDP) and to evaluate its psychometric properties.

Methods

50 interviews with dermatology patients and 258 questionnaires, completed by cardiology, rheumatology, nephrology, diabetes and respiratory disorder patients, were analysed for qualitative data using Nvivo8 software. Content validation was carried out by a panel of experts. The first version of the MLCDP was completed by 210 patients and an iterative process of multiple Exploratory Factor Analyses and item prevalence was used to guide item reduction. Face validity and practicability was assessed by patients.

Results

48 MLCDs were selected from analysis of the transcripts and questionnaires for the first version of the MLCDP, and reduced to 45 by combination of similar themes. There was a high intraclass correlation coefficient (0.7) between the 13 members of the content validation panel. Four more items were deleted leaving a 41-item MLCDP that was completed by 210 patients. The most frequently recorded MLCDs were decisions to change eating habits (71.4%), to change smoking/drinking alcohol habits (58.5%) and not to travel or go for holidays abroad (50.9%).

Factor analysis suggested item number reduction from 41 to 34, to 29, then 23 items. However after taking into account item prevalence data as well as factor analysis results, 32 items were retained. The 32-item MLCDP has five domains education (3 items), job/career (9), family/relationships (5), social (10) and physical (5). The MLCDP score is expressed as the absolute number of decisions that have been affected.

Conclusions

The 32-item (5 domains) MLCDP has been developed as an easy to complete generic tool for use in clinical practice and for quality of life and epidemiological research. Further validation is required.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bhatti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 5.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bhatti ZU, Salek MS, Finlay AY: Chronic diseases influence major life changing decisions: a new domain in quality of life research. J Royal Soc Med 2011, 104:241-250.
• [2]Bhatti ZU, Salek MS, Finlay AY: Major life changing decisions and cumulative life course impairment. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011, 25:245-246.
• [3]Bhatti ZU, Salek S, Finlay AY: The influence of chronic skin diseases on major life-changing decisions as a parameter for the assessment of long-term impact. Br J Dermatol 2010, 163:39-40. (Supplement 1)
• [4]Bhatti ZU, Finlay AY, Salek S, Ketchell IR, Bolton CE: Chronic respiratory diseases strongly influence major life changing decisions. Thorax 2009, 64:A75-A174. (Supplement 4)
• [5]Bhatti ZU, Finlay AY, Salek MS, George LD: Diabetes influence on major life changing decisions: should this be an area of concern in management of patients? Diabet Med 2010, 27:1-36. (Supplement 1)
• [6]Bhatti ZU, Salek SS, Finlay AY, Jones SM: Better understanding of the influence of rheumatic disorders on major life changing decisions. Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:715. Supplement 3)
• [7]Bhatti ZU, Finlay AY, Salek MS, Halcox JJ: The full impact of chronic cardiovascular diseases cannot be measured without an assessment of life decisions. J Heart Dis 2010, 7:71.
• [8]Futrell D: When quality is a matter of taste, use reliability indexes. Qual Prog 1995, 28:81-86.
• [9]Gwet KL: Intrarater Reliability. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2008:1-13. [Wiley encyclopedia of clinical trials]
• [10]Streiner DL: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
• [11]Salek MS: Compendium of quality of life instruments. Volume 1–5. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
• [12]Salek MS: Compendium of quality of life instruments. Volume 6–7. Euromed Communications: Haslemere; 2007.
• [13]Fayers PM, Hand DJ: Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Qual Life Res 1997, 6:139-150.
• [14]Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
• [15]Haynes SN, Richard DCS, Kubany ES: Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 1995, 7:238-247.
• [16]Landis R, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [17]Beebe TJ, Stoner SM, Anderson KJ, Williams AR: Selected questionnaire size and colour combinations were significantly related to mailed survey response rates. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:1184-1189.
• [18]Pallant J: SPSS survival manual: a step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 12). 2nd edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
• [19]Norusis MJ: SPSS 13.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River: NJ; 2005.
• [20]Costello AB, Osborne JW: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assessment Res Eval 2005, 10:1-9.
• [21]Kaiser HF: A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 1970, 35:401-415.
• [22]Kaiser HF: An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39:31-36.
• [23]Bartlett MS: A note on multiplying factors for various chi-squared approximations. J R Stat Soc 1954, 16:296-298.
• [24]Catell RB: The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1966, 1:245-276.