4.7 Article

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 34, Issue 11-12, Pages 1328-1336

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04871.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Celgene
  2. UCB
  3. Warner-Chilcott

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Many patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohns disease (CD) complain of significant fatigue. To date, no instrument to measure fatigue has been validated in a US inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population. Aim To determine the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale in IBD. Methods A total of 209 patients with IBD completed the 13 items of the FACIT-F, alongside laboratory testing and disease activity assessment. Internal consistency was measured by Cronbachs alpha; testretest reliability by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC); validity by the correlation of the FACIT-F score with C-reactive protein (CRP) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), haematocrit (HCT) and disease activity as measured by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI; CD) and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI; UC). Results The mean +/- SD FACIT-F score was 38.9 +/- 11.0 overall (CD 38.6 +/- 11.3; UC 39.4 +/- 10.6). Cronbachs alpha was 0.94. The ICC for first and repeat FACIT-F scores assessed within 180 days without change in disease state was 0.81 (CD 0.78; UC 0.87). FACIT-F scores were lower in patients with active symptoms (CD 4.6 points, 95% CI 2.46.9, P < 0.001; UC 8.5 points, 95% CI 5.511.4, P < 0.001). In UC, FACIT-F scores were correlated with ESR (-0.76, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.50), CRP (-0.72, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.43) and HCT (0.53, 95% CI 0.220.74). Conclusion The FACIT-F scale is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring fatigue in IBD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available