The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire - Sensitivity to differences and responsiveness to intervention intensity in a clinical population
The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire - Sensitivity to differences and responsiveness to intervention intensity in a clinical population
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00006199-200207000-00001
复制
发表时间：
2002-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Albert, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Riegel, B;Moser, DK;Albert, N
背景资料：明尼苏达心力衰竭生活问卷（LHFQ）是心力衰竭患者健康相关生活质量的常用指标。研究人员质疑LHFQ是否对细微差异敏感，是否对临床干预有足够的反应，因为该仪器在临床试验中表现出可变的性能。目的：进行二次分析以评估LHFQ对不同临床状态的敏感性和对不同强度临床干预的反应性。方法：来自美国8个临床研究中心的9项实验性或准实验性研究的便利样本产生了1，136例心力衰竭患者的数据。研究中的数据在入组时以及1个月、3个月和/或6个月后收集。数据进行了分析，使用描述性的，单变量和多变量techniques.Results：总的和分量表评分LHFQ较差的那些更糟糕的纽约心脏协会功能类，虽然有没有在LHFQ评分之间的第三类和第四类的差异。当患者按射血分数分类时，LHFQ评分无差异。出院后评分显著改善，即使是对照组。接受高强度干预的患者的LHFQ评分变化最大。结论：LHFQ对症状严重程度的主要差异敏感，但可能对细微差异不敏感。它对高强度的干预措施作出反应。研究者被警告不要在没有最大化干预力量或没有对照组进行比较的情况下使用这种工具。
Background: The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) is a commonly used measure of health-related quality of life in persons with heart failure. Researchers have questioned whether LHFQ is sensitive to subtle differences and sufficiently responsive to clinical interventions because the instrument has demonstrated variable performance in clinical trials.Objectives: A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the LHFQ for sensitivity to different clinical states and responsiveness to varying intensities of clinical intervention.Methods: A convenience sample of nine experimental or quasi, experimental studies from eight clinical sites in the United States yielded data from 1,136 patients with heart failure. Data in the studies had been collected at enrollment and one, three, and/or six months later. Data were analyzed using descriptive, univariate, and multivariate techniques.Results: Total and subscale scores on LHFQ were poorer in those with worse New York Heart Association functional class, although there was no difference in LHFQ scores between classes III and IV. No difference in LHFQ scores was found when patients were classified by ejection fraction. Scores improved significantly following hospital discharge, even in those in the control group. Changes in LHFQ scores were greatest in those receiving high intensity interventions.Conclusions: The LHFQ is sensitive to major differences in symptom severity but may not be sensitive to subtle differences. It is responsive to high intensity interventions. Investigators are cautioned against using this instrument without first maximizing intervention power or without a control group for comparison.