4.5 Article

Quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients with urinary disorders: Discriminative validation of the English version of Qualiveen

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 425-431

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-0686-1

Keywords

multiple sclerosis; neurogenic bladder dysfunction; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Qualiveen questionnaire is a urinary disorder (UD)-specific health related quality of life (HRQL) instrument. Recent data suggests Qualiveen has excellent validity in French-speaking multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Aim: To assess discriminative measurement properties of the English version of Qualiveen. Methods: Fifty-five Canadian MS out-patients completed a set of questionnaires, including Qualiveen, MSQOL-54, a MS-specific HRQL questionnaire, urinary function assessments and the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) twice at an interval of two to four weeks. Results: Qualiveen proved internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha coefficients 0.73 to 0.90 for the four Qualiveen domains) and test-retest reliable (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.88 to 0.94). Consistent with a priori predictions, we found a strong association between overall Qualiveen score and the degree of incontinence (0.63), a moderate correlation with the type of urinary symptoms (0.49), a weak association with manner of voiding (0.28) and weak or absent correlations with MSQOL-54 domains, EDSS bladder/bowel and global EDSS. Predictions proved generally accurate (weighted kappa = 0.65). Conclusion: The internal consistency, test-retest reliability and cross-sectional construct validity of the English version of Qualiveen are excellent, and similar to the original French version. Further studies should explore Qualiveen's longitudinal validity and responsiveness.

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