57
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quantification of dyspnoea using descriptors: development and initial testing of the Dyspnoea-12

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4
      Thorax
      BMJ Group

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rationale:

          Dyspnoea is a debilitating and distressing symptom that is reflected in different verbal descriptors. Evidence suggests that dyspnoea, like pain perception, consists of sensory quality and affective components. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument that measures overall dyspnoea severity using descriptors that reflect its different aspects.

          Methods:

          81 dyspnoea descriptors were administered to 123 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 129 with interstitial lung disease and 106 with chronic heart failure. These were reduced to 34 items using hierarchical methods. Rasch analysis informed decisions regarding further item removal and fit to the unidimensional model. Principal component analysis (PCA) explored the underlying structure of the final item set. Validity and reliability of the new instrument were further assessed in a separate group of 53 patients with COPD.

          Results:

          After removal of items with hierarchical methods (n = 47) and items that failed to fit the Rasch model (n = 22), 12 were retained. The “Dyspnoea-12” had good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.9) and fit to the Rasch model (χ 2 p = 0.08). Items patterned into two groups called “physical”(n = 7) and “affective”(n = 5). In the separate validation study, Dyspnoea-12 correlated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (anxiety r = 0.51; depression r = 0.44, p<0.001, respectively), 6-minute walk distance (r = −0.38, p<0.01) and MRC (Medical Research Council) grade (r = 0.48, p<0.01), and had good stability over time (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9, p<0.001).

          Conclusion:

          Dyspnoea-12 fulfills modern psychometric requirements for measurement. It provides a global score of breathlessness severity that incorporates both “physical” and “affective” aspects, and can measure dyspnoea in a variety of diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Dyspnea. Mechanisms, assessment, and management: a consensus statement. American Thoracic Society.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The multiple dimensions of dyspnea: review and hypotheses.

            Although dyspnea is a common and troubling symptom, our understanding of the neurophysiology of dyspnea is woefully incomplete. Most measurements of dyspnea treat it as a single entity. Although the multidimensional dyspnea concept has been mentioned for many decades, only recently has the concept been the subject of experimental tests. Emerging evidence has begun to favor the hypothesis that dyspnea comprises multiple dimensions or components that can be measured as different entities. Most recently, studies have begun to show that there is a separable 'affective dimension' (i.e. unpleasantness and emotional impact). Understanding of the multidimensional measurement of pain is far in advance of dyspnea, and has enabled progress in the neurophysiology of pain, including identification of separate neural structures subserving various elements of pain perception. We propose here a multidimensional model of dyspnea based on a state-of-the-art pain model, and review existing evidence in the light of this model.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The affective dimension of laboratory dyspnea: air hunger is more unpleasant than work/effort.

              It is hypothesized that the affective dimension of dyspnea (unpleasantness, emotional response) is not strictly dependent on the intensity of dyspnea. We tested the hypothesis that the ratio of immediate unpleasantness (A(1)) to sensory intensity (SI) varies depending on the type of dyspnea. Twelve healthy subjects experienced three stimuli: stimulus 1: maximal eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea against inspiratory resistance, requiring 15 times the work of resting breathing; stimulus 2: Pet(CO(2)) 6.1 mm Hg above resting with ventilation restricted to less than spontaneous breathing; stimulus 3: Pet(CO(2)) 7.7 mm Hg above resting with ventilation further restricted. After each trial, subjects rated SI, A(1), and qualities of dyspnea on the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP), a comprehensive instrument tested here for the first time. Stimulus 1 was always limited by subjects failing to meet a higher ventilation target; none signaled severe discomfort. This evoked work and effort sensations, with relatively low unpleasantness (mean A(1)/SI = 0.64). Stimulus 2, titrated to produce dyspnea ratings similar to those subjects gave during stimulus 1, evoked air hunger and produced significantly greater unpleasantness (mean A(1)/SI = 0.95). Stimulus 3, increased until air hunger was intolerable, evoked the highest intensity and unpleasantness ratings and high unpleasantness ratio (mean A(1)/SI = 1.09). When asked which they would prefer to repeat, all subjects chose stimulus 1. (1) Maximal respiratory work is less unpleasant than moderately intense air hunger in this brief test; (2) unpleasantness of dyspnea can vary independently from perceived intensity, consistent with the prevailing model of pain; (3) separate dimensions of dyspnea can be measured with the MDP.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Thorax
                thorax
                thoraxjnl
                Thorax
                BMJ Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0040-6376
                1468-3296
                2010
                January 2010
                2 December 2009
                2 December 2009
                : 65
                : 1
                : 21-26
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK
                [2 ]National Heart and Lung Institute, Charing Cross Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, UK
                [3 ]Nursing and Clinical Governance, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [4 ]Division of Cardiac and Vascular Science, St George’s University of London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr J Yorke, 1.43 Mary Seacole Building, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health & Social Care, University of Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, UK; j.yorke@ 123456salford.ac.uk
                Article
                tx118521
                10.1136/thx.2009.118521
                2795166
                19996336
                b45ffb6a-61e5-4411-8765-17a1d4af0350
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Thoracic Society. All rights reserved.
                History
                : 27 April 2009
                : 21 October 2009
                Categories
                Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
                1506

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article