The development and validation of the Leiden Bother and Needs Questionnaire for patients with pituitary disease: the LBNQ-Pituitary

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

Background

Patients report persisting impairment in quality of life (QoL) after treatment for pituitary disease. At present, there is no questionnaire to assess (a) whether patients with pituitary disease are bothered by these consequences, and (b) their needs for support.

Objective

To develop and validate a disease-specific questionnaire for patients with pituitary disease which incorporates patient perceived bother related to the consequences of the disease, and their needs for support.

Methods

Items for the Leiden Bother and Needs Questionnaire for patients with pituitary disease (LBNQ-Pituitary) were formulated based on results of a recent focus group study (n = 49 items). 337 patients completed the LBNQ-Pituitary and six validated QoL questionnaires (EuroQoL-5D, SF-36, MFI-20, HADS, AcroQol, CushingQoL). Construct validity was examined by exploratory factor analysis. Reliabilities of the subscales were calculated with Cronbach’s alphas, and concurrent validity was assessed by calculating Spearman’s correlations between the LBNQ-Pituitary and the other measures.

Results

Factor analyses produced five subscales (i.e., mood problems, negative illness perceptions, issues in sexual functioning, physical and cognitive complaints, issues in social functioning) containing a total of 26 items. All factors were found to be reliable (Cronbach’s alphas all ≥.765), and the correlations between the dimensions of the LBNQ-Pituitary and other questionnaires (all P ≤ .0001) demonstrated convergent validity.

Conclusions

The LBNQ-Pituitary can be used to assess the degree to which patients are bothered by the consequences of the pituitary disease, as well as their needs for support. It could also facilitate an efficient assessment of patients’ needs for support in clinical practice. We postulate that paying attention to needs for support will lead to optimal patient care (e.g., improvement in psychosocial care), and positively affect QoL.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11102-016-0707-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

J E Ware, C Sherbourne (1992)

A 36-item short-form (SF-36) was constructed to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study. The SF-36 was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 includes one multi-item scale that assesses eight health concepts: 1) limitations in physical activities because of health problems; 2) limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems; 3) limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems; 4) bodily pain; 5) general mental health (psychological distress and well-being); 6) limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems; 7) vitality (energy and fatigue); and 8) general health perceptions. The survey was constructed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older, and for administration by a trained interviewer in person or by telephone. The history of the development of the SF-36, the origin of specific items, and the logic underlying their selection are summarized. The content and features of the SF-36 are compared with the 20-item Medical Outcomes Study short-form.

0 comments Cited 1759 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life

(1990)

0 comments Cited 1180 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review.

Ingvar Bjelland, Alv A Dahl, Tone Haug … (2002)

To review the literature of the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A review of the 747 identified papers that used HADS was performed to address the following questions: (I) How are the factor structure, discriminant validity and the internal consistency of HADS? (II) How does HADS perform as a case finder for anxiety disorders and depression? (III) How does HADS agree with other self-rating instruments used to rate anxiety and depression? Most factor analyses demonstrated a two-factor solution in good accordance with the HADS subscales for Anxiety (HADS-A) and Depression (HADS-D), respectively. The correlations between the two subscales varied from.40 to.74 (mean.56). Cronbach's alpha for HADS-A varied from.68 to.93 (mean.83) and for HADS-D from.67 to.90 (mean.82). In most studies an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity was achieved when caseness was defined by a score of 8 or above on both HADS-A and HADS-D. The sensitivity and specificity for both HADS-A and HADS-D of approximately 0.80 were very similar to the sensitivity and specificity achieved by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Correlations between HADS and other commonly used questionnaires were in the range.49 to.83. HADS was found to perform well in assessing the symptom severity and caseness of anxiety disorders and depression in both somatic, psychiatric and primary care patients and in the general population.

0 comments Cited 907 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Cornelie D. Andela: +31-71-526 5304 , c.d.andela@lumc.nl

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Pituitary

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Pituitary

Title: Pituitary

Publisher: Springer US (New York )

ISSN (Print): 1386-341X

ISSN (Electronic): 1573-7403

Publication date (Electronic): 25 January 2016

Publication date PMC-release: 25 January 2016

Publication date (Print): 2016

Volume: 19

Pages: 293-302

Affiliations

[ ]Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Center for Endocrine Tumors, C7-Q, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands

[ ]Medical Psychology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

[ ]Psychological Science, University of California, Merced, CA USA

[ ]Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

[ ]Center for Behavioural Medicine, University College London, London, UK

[ ]Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Article

Publisher ID: 707

DOI: 10.1007/s11102-016-0707-4

PMC ID: 4858557

PubMed ID: 26809957

SO-VID: cbe00be7-b386-49ee-9070-aef50a526307

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

History

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: patient-reported-outcome,needs,quality of life,illness perceptions,pituitary adenomas,acromegaly,cushing’s disease,cushing’s syndrome,prolactinoma,non-functioning pituitary macroadenoma,hypopituitarism

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: patient-reported-outcome, needs, quality of life, illness perceptions, pituitary adenomas, acromegaly, cushing’s disease, cushing’s syndrome, prolactinoma, non-functioning pituitary macroadenoma, hypopituitarism

The development and validation of the Leiden Bother and Needs Questionnaire for patients with pituitary disease: the LBNQ-Pituitary

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

UCL: UN SDG 03 Good Health and Well-Being

Most cited references 41

The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life

The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 392

Cited by 16

Most referenced authors 604