Pancreatitis Quality of Life Instrument: Development of a new instrument

Wahid Wassef, Carol Bova, Bruce Barton, Celia Hartigan, Wahid Wassef, Carol Bova, Bruce Barton, Celia Hartigan

Abstract

Objectives: The goal of this project was to develop the first disease-specific instrument for the evaluation of quality of life in chronic pancreatitis.

Methods: Focus groups and interview sessions were conducted, with chronic pancreatitis patients, to identify items felt to impact quality of life which were subsequently formatted into a paper-and-pencil instrument. This instrument was used to conduct an online survey by an expert panel of pancreatologists to evaluate its content validity. Finally, the modified instrument was presented to patients during precognitive testing interviews to evaluate its clarity and appropriateness.

Results: In total, 10 patients were enrolled in the focus groups and interview sessions where they identified 50 items. Once redundant items were removed, the 40 remaining items were made into a paper-and-pencil instrument referred to as the Pancreatitis Quality of Life Instrument. Through the processes of content validation and precognitive testing, the number of items in the instrument was reduced to 24.

Conclusions: This marks the development of the first disease-specific instrument to evaluate quality of life in chronic pancreatitis. It includes unique features not found in generic instruments (economic factors, stigma, and spiritual factors). Although this marks a giant step forward, psychometric evaluation is still needed prior to its clinical use.

Keywords: Pancreatitis Quality of Life Instrument; Quality of life; chronic pancreatitis.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Instrument development flowchart.

References

    1. Yadav D, Lowenfels A. The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2013; 144(6): 1252–1261.
    1. Yadav D, Eigenbrodt M, Briggs M, et al. Pancreatitis: prevalence and risk factors among male veterans in a detoxification program. Pancreas 2007; 34(4): 390–398.
    1. Maruyama K, Otsuki M. Incidence of alcoholic pancreatitis in Japanese alcoholics: survey of male sobriety association members in Japan. Pancreas 2007; 34(1): 63–65.
    1. Garg P, Tandon R. Survey on chronic pancreatitis in the Asia-Pacific region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19(9): 998–1004.
    1. Singh S, Reber H. The pathology of chronic pancreatitis. World J Surg 1990; 14: 2–10.
    1. Lankisch P, Lohr-Happe A, Otto J, et al. Natural course in chronic pancreatitis: pain, exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency and prognosis of the disease. Digestion 1993; 54: 148–155.
    1. Wehler M, Nichterlein R, Fischer B, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(1): 138–146.
    1. Gardner T, Kennedy A, Gelrud A, et al. Chronic pancreatitis and its effects on employment and health care experience: results of a prospective American multicenter study. Pancreas 2010; 39(4): 498–501.
    1. Mokrowiecka A, Pinkowski D, Malecka-Panas E, et al. Clinical, emotional and social factors associated with quality of life in chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2010; 10(1): 39–46.
    1. Amann ST, Yadav D, Barmada M. Physical and mental quality of life in chronic pancreatitis: a case-control study from the North American Pancreatitis Study 2 cohort. Pancreas 2013; 42: 293–300.
    1. Pezzilli R, Fantini L. Chronic pancreatitis: assessing quality of life. J Pancreas (Online) 2005; 6(4): 406–409.
    1. Testa M, Simonson D. Assessment of quality of life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(13): 835–840.
    1. Eisen G, Zubarik R. Disease-specific outcomes assessment for chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1999; 9(4): 717–730.
    1. Eisen G, Sandler S, Maniatis A. Development of a disease-specific measure for health related quality of life for individuals with chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1995; 108: A352.
    1. Melzack R. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1987; 30: 191–197.
    1. Wehler M, Reulback U, Nichterlein R, et al. Health-related quality of life in chronic pancreatitis: a psychometric assessment. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003; 38: 1083–1089.
    1. Fitzsimmons D, Kahl S, Butturini G, et al. Symptoms and quality of life in chronic pancreatitis assessed by structured interview and the EROTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 918–926.
    1. Burns K, Duffett M, Kho M, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. Can Med Assoc J 2008; 179(3): 245–252.
    1. Etemad B, Whitcomb Chronic pancreatitis: diagnosis, classification, and new genetic developments. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 682–707.
    1. Albashir S, Bronner M, Parsi M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound, secretin endoscopic pancreatic function test, and histology: correlation in chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2498–2503.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349–357.
    1. Stewart D, Shamdasani P, Rook D. Focus groups: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349–357.
    1. Wilson I, Cleary P. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. JAMA 1995; 273(1): 59–65.
    1. Knaft K. Focus on research methods: the analysis and interpretation of cognitive interviews for instrument development. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30: 224–234.
    1. Saumure K, Given L. Data saturation. In: Given L. (ed.) The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008, pp. 196–197.
    1. Krippendorf K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2004.
    1. Fowler F. Improving survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1995.
    1. Lynn M. Determination of quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986; 35(6): 382–385.
    1. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004,
    1. Bova C, Fennie K, Watrous E, et al. The Health Care Relationship (HCR) Trust Scale: development and psychometric evaluation. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29: 477–488.
    1. Polit D, Beck C, Owen S. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30: 459–467.
    1. Schilling L, Dixon J, Knafl K, et al. Determining content validity of a self-report instrument for adolescents using a heterogeneous expert panel. Nurs Res 2007; 56(5): 361–366.
    1. Rippentrop AE. A review of the role of religion and spirituality in chronic pain populations. Rehabil Psychol 2005; 50(3): 278–284.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅