4.5 Article

Evaluative and discriminative properties of the Portuguese MacNew Heart Disease Health-related Quality of Life questionnaire

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages 2335-2341

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-7213-x

Keywords

acute coronary syndrome; cardiac rehabilitation; health-related quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to validate the Portuguese version of the self-administered MacNew Heart Disease Health-related Quality of Life (MacNew) questionnaire in patients after diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. The MacNew, with a Global score and physical, emotional and social subscales, the Short Form SF-36 (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were completed at baseline by 150 patients and again by 48 clinically stable patients 2-3 weeks later. A cohort of 50 different patients completed the same questionnaires before and after a cardiac rehabilitation program in order to examine responsiveness. Acceptance of the MacNew by the patients was good and the three factor model was substantiated and explained 52.2% of the variance. Internal consistency, intra-class-correlation, and test-retest reliability each exceeded 0.72. The predicted construct validity hypotheses were partially confirmed. The discriminative validity of the MacNew was confirmed with significantly higher MacNew scores for patients with normal left ventricular function, with improved health status, and who were not anxious or depressed. Even though MacNew scores improved significantly following cardiac rehabilitation, the evaluative validity of the MacNew was less robust with small responsiveness statistics. The Portuguese version of the MacNew HRQL questionnaire appears to be a reliable, valid, and moderately responsive instrument to evaluate health-related quality of life after diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available