The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients

Regina Rendas-Baum, Lisa M Bloudek, Gregory A Maglinte, Sepideh F Varon, Regina Rendas-Baum, Lisa M Bloudek, Gregory A Maglinte, Sepideh F Varon

Abstract

Objective: The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) has been shown to have good psychometric performance in measuring headache impact in migraine patients, but its properties specifically in chronic migraine (CM) patients are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MSQ in a group of CM patients undergoing prophylactic treatment.

Methods: Measurement properties of the MSQ were examined using two international, multicenter, randomized clinical trials evaluating onabotulinumtoxinA as headache prophylaxis in CM patients (N = 1,376). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the latent structure of the MSQ in CM patients. The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness of the MSQ were assessed.

Results: CFA confirmed the currently proposed three-factor MSQ latent structure across the two studies. Good reliability was observed for all three MSQ scales, across studies and time points. MSQ scale scores strongly correlated with the scores of the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Analysis of known-groups validity indicated that MSQ scale scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in their 28-day headache frequency were as follows <10, 10-14, and ≥ 15 days, and the sample-derived quartiles of the total cumulative hours of headache were as follows <140, 140 to <280, 280 to <420, and ≥ 420 h (p < 0.0001), across both studies and time points. MSQ change scores were higher in magnitude in groups experiencing greater decline in headache frequency (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The MSQ is a psychometrically valid tool that can be used to reliably measure the impact of migraine among CM patients.

References

    1. Dahlof CG. Measuring disability and quality of life in migraine. Drugs Today (Barcelona) 2003;39(Suppl D):17–23.
    1. Dahlof CG, Dimenas E. Migraine patients experience poorer subjective well-being/quality of life even between attacks. Cephalalgia. 1995;15(1):31–36. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1995.1501031.x.
    1. Freitag FG. The cycle of migraine: Patients’ quality of life during and between migraine attacks. Clinical Therapy. 2007;29(5):939–949. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.05.008.
    1. Tfelt-Hansen P, Block G, Dahlof C, Diener HC, Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: Second edition. Cephalalgia. 2000;20(9):765–786. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2000.00117.x.
    1. Silberstein S, Tfelt-Hansen P, Dodick DW, Limmroth V, Lipton RB, Pascual J, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(5):484–495. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01555.x.
    1. Jhingran P, Osterhaus JT, Miller DW, Lee JT, Kirchdoerfer L. Development and validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Headache. 1998;38(4):295–302. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3804295.x.
    1. Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, Adelman JU, Taylor F, Kwong WJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ version 2.1) Headache. 2000;40(3):204–215. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2000.00030.x.
    1. Jhingran P, Davis SM, LaVange LM, Miller DW, Helms RW. MSQ: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure 152. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(6):707–717. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199813060-00007.
    1. Cole JC, Lin P, Rupnow MF. Validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v. 2.1) for patients undergoing prophylactic migraine treatment. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16(7):1231–1237. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9217-1.
    1. Cole JC, Lin P, Rupnow MF. Minimal important differences in the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version. Cephalalgia. 2009;29(11):1180–1187. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01852.x.
    1. Bigal ME, Rapoport AM, Lipton RB, Tepper SJ, Sheftell FD. Assessment of migraine disability using the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: A comparison of chronic migraine with episodic migraine. Headache. 2003;43(4):336–342. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03068.x.
    1. Guitera V, Munoz P, Castillo J, Pascual J. Quality of life in chronic daily headache—a study in a general population. Neurology. 2002;58(7):1062–1065. doi: 10.1212/WNL.58.7.1062.
    1. Lovati C, D’Amico D, Bertora P, Rosa S, Suardelli M, Mailland E, et al. Acute and interictal allodynia in patients with different headache forms: An Italian pilot study. Headache. 2008;48(2):272–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00998.x.
    1. Lovati C, D’Amico D, Rosa S, Suardelli M, Mailland E, Bertora P, et al. Allodynia in different forms of migraine. Neurological Sciences. 2007;28(Suppl 2):S220–S221. doi: 10.1007/s10072-007-0781-5.
    1. Kitaj MB, Klink M. Pain thresholds in daily transformed migraine versus episodic migraine headache patients. Headache. 2005;45(8):992–998. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05179.x.
    1. Bagley CL, Rendas-Baum R, Maglinte GA, Yang M, Varon SF, Lee J, et al. Validating Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 in episodic and chronic migraine. Headache. 2011
    1. Adelman JU, Sharfman M, Johnson R, Miller D, Clements B, Pait G, et al. Impact of oral sumatriptan on workplace productivity, health-related quality of life, healthcare use, and patient satisfaction with medication in nurses with migraine. The American Journal of Managed Care. 1996;2(10):1407–1416.
    1. Cohen JA, Beall DG, Miller DW, Beck A, Pait G, Clements BD. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: Humanistic, economic, and clinical consequences. Family Medicine. 1996;28(3):171–177.
    1. Jhingran P, Cady RK, Rubino J, Miller D, Grice RB, Gutterman DL. Improvements in health-related quality of life with sumatriptan treatment for migraine. Journal of Family Practice. 1996;42(1):36–42.
    1. Aurora SK, Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 1 trial. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(7):793–803. doi: 10.1177/0333102410364676.
    1. Diener HC, Dodick DW, Aurora SK, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, Lipton RB, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 2 trial. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(7):804–814. doi: 10.1177/0333102410364677.
    1. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society The international classification of headache disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia. 2004;24(Suppl 1):9–160.
    1. Dahlof C, Bouchard J, Cortelli P, Heywood J, Jansen JP, Pham S, et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. II: Health-related quality of life. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11(Suppl 1):24–34. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199700111-00005.
    1. Martin BC, Pathak DS, Kwong J, Batenhorst AS, Sharfman M. Assessment of the responsiveness of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (version 2.1) In: Olesen J, Steiner TJ, Lipton RB, editors. Reducing the burden of headache. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 116–120.
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Bayliss MS, Batenhorst A, Dahlof CGH, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research. 2003;12(8):935–952. doi: 10.1023/A:1026115230284.
    1. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, Ware JE, Jr, Garber WH, Batenhorst A, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: The HIT-6. Quality of Life Research. 2003;12(8):963–974. doi: 10.1023/A:1026119331193.
    1. Bayliss M, Batenhorst A. The HIT-6™ a user’s guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.
    1. Muthen LD, Muthen BO. MPlus user’s guide. 5. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 2007.
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
    1. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological testing. 7. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Gandek B, Rogers W, Reese PR. MAP-R for Windows: multitrait/multi-Item analysis program—revised user’s guide. Boston, MA: Health Assessment Lab; 1997.
    1. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7(3):309–319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.
    1. Kerlinger F. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1973.
    1. Lipton RB. Tracing transformation: Chronic migraine classification, progression, and epidemiology. Neurology. 2009;72(5 Suppl):S3–S7. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181974b19.
    1. Cohen JA. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112:155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren