The revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease scale: validation in six countries

Sarah Hewlett, John Kirwan, Christina Bode, Fiona Cramp, Loreto Carmona, Emma Dures, Matthias Englbrecht, Jaap Fransen, Rosemary Greenwood, Sofia Hagel, Maart van de Laar, Anna Molto, Joanna Nicklin, Ingemar F Petersson, Marta Redondo, Georg Schett, Laure Gossec, Sarah Hewlett, John Kirwan, Christina Bode, Fiona Cramp, Loreto Carmona, Emma Dures, Matthias Englbrecht, Jaap Fransen, Rosemary Greenwood, Sofia Hagel, Maart van de Laar, Anna Molto, Joanna Nicklin, Ingemar F Petersson, Marta Redondo, Georg Schett, Laure Gossec

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS V2) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) scale in six countries.

Methods: We surveyed RA patients in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, including the HAQ, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and potential revisions of the BRAF-NRS coping and Spanish RAID coping items. Factor structure and internal consistency were examined by factor analysis and Cronbach's α and construct validity by Spearman's correlation.

Results: A total of 1276 patients participated (76% female, 25% with a disease duration <5 years, median HAQ 1.0). The original BRAF-MDQ four-factor structure and RAID single-factor structure were confirmed in every country with ⩾66% of variation in items explained by each factor and all item factor loadings of 0.71-0.98. Internal consistency for the BRAF-MDQ total and subscales was a Cronbach's α of 0.75-0.96 and for RAID, 0.93-0.96. Fatigue construct validity was shown for the BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS severity and effect scales, correlated internally with SF-36 vitality and with RAID fatigue (r = 0.63-0.93). Broader construct validity for the BRAFs and RAID was shown by correlation with each other, HAQ and SF-36 domains (r = 0.46-0.82), with similar patterns in individual countries. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 Coping item had stronger validity than the original in all analyses. The revised Spanish RAID coping item performed as well as the original.

Conclusion: Across six European countries, the BRAF-MDQ identifies the same four aspects of fatigue, and along with the RAID, shows strong factor structure and internal consistency and moderate-good construct validity. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 shows improved construct validity and replaces the original.

Keywords: PROMs; cultural; fatigue; impact; rheumatoid arthritis; validation.

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.

References

    1. Young A, Dixey J, Cox N. et al. How does functional disability in early rheumatoid arthritis affect patients and their lives? Results of 5 years of follow-up in 732 patients from the Early RA Study (ERAS). Rheumatology 2000;39:603–11.
    1. Stoffer MA, Schoels MM, Smolen JS. et al. Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:16–22.
    1. Pollard L, Choy EH, Scott DL.. The consequences of rheumatoid arthritis: quality of life measures in the individual patient. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;235:43–52.
    1. Nicklin J, Cramp F, Kirwan J. et al. Collaboration with patients in the design of patient reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:1552–8.
    1. Nicklin J, Cramp F, Kirwan J. et al. Measuring fatigue in RA: a cross-sectional study to evaluate the BRAF multi-dimensional questionnaire, visual analogue and numerical rating scales. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:1559–6.
    1. Dures E, Cramp F, Greenwood R, Kirwan J, Hewlett S.. Reliability and sensitivity to change of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue scales. Rheumatology 2013;52:1832–9.
    1. Gossec L, Dougados M, Rincheval N. et al. Elaboration of the preliminary Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score: a EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1680–5.
    1. Gossec L, Paternotte S, Aanerud G. et al. Finalisation and validation of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score: a patient-derived composite measure of impact of RA. A EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:935–42.
    1. Heiberg T, Austad C, Kvien TK. et al. Performance of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score in relation to other patient-reported outcomes in a register of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1080–2.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M. et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005;8:94–104.
    1. Epstein J, Miyuki Santo R, Guillemin F.. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:435–41.
    1. Hewlett S, Nicklin J, Bode C. et al. Translating patient reported outcome measures: methodological issues explored using cognitive interviewing with three rheumatoid arthritis measures in 6 European languages. Rheumatology 2016;55:1009–16.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR.. Devising the items In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, eds. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008:29–33.
    1. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X.. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res 1998;7:323–35.
    1. Drennan J. Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. J Adv Nurs 2003;42:57–63.
    1. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003;12:229–38.
    1. Tourangeau R. Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. Int J Public Opin Res 2003;15:3–7.
    1. Boers M, Kirwan J, Tugwell P. et al. The OMERACT Handbook. (14 July 2016, date last accessed).
    1. Arnett FC, Edworthy SC, Bloch DA. et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315–24.
    1. Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH.. Measuring health status in arthritis: the arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:146–52.
    1. Fries J, Spitz P, Kraines G. et al. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137–45.
    1. Ware J, Sherbourne C.. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992;30:473–83.
    1. DeVon H, Block M, Moyle-Wright P. et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007;39:155–64.
    1. Lidwine B., Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, et al. Cosmin Checklist Manual. (24 January 2017, date last accessed).
    1. Malaviay A. Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis: Indian perspective. Indian J Rheumatol 2013;8:S36–7.
    1. Hewlett S, Dures E, Almeida C.. Measures of fatigue: Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF MDQ), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF NRS) for severity, effect, and coping, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20R and CIS8R), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy (Fatigue) (FACIT-F), Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Scale, Profile of Fatigue (ProF), Short Form 36 Vitality Subscale (SF-36 VT), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Arthritis Care Res 2011;63(Suppl 11):263–86.
    1. Bartlett S, Orbai AM, Duncan T. et al. Reliability and validity of selected PROMIS measures in people with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138543.
    1. Skinner EA, Edge K, Altman J. et al. Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol Bull 2003;129:216–69.
    1. Bykerk V, Lie E, Alten R. et al. Establishing a core domain set to measure rheumatoid arthritis flares: report of the OMERACT 11 RA flare workshop. J Rheumatol 2014;41:799–809.
    1. Vriezekolk J, Van Lankveld WGJM, Eijsbouts AMM. et al. The coping flexibility questionnaire: development and initial validation in patients with chronic rheumatic diseases. Rheumatol Int 2012;32:283–91.
    1. Batchelor RE, San Jose MA.. A Reference Grammar of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010:416–21.
    1. Hewlett S, Kirwan J, Pollock J. et al. Patient-initiated outpatient follow-up in rheumatoid arthritis: six year randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005;330:171–6.
    1. Richards M. Extent and causes of international variations in drug usage. A report for the Secretary of State for Health. 14 July 2016, date last accessed).
    1. Katz PP, Barton J, Trupin L.. Poverty, depression, or lost in translation? Ethnic and language variation in patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2016;68:621–8.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR.. Item response theory In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, eds. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008:299–330.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다