Key result
The Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire shows strong validity and reliability for assessing symptom burden.
Why the study?
Preliminary validity of the PPAQ had only been shown in SVT patients, leaving its concurrent validity across a wider variety of arrhythmias and gender differences unexamined.
Does the Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire (PPAQ) demonstrate concurrent validity and reliability in patients with a variety of cardiac arrhythmias?
Cross-Sectional (n=51)
No
Does the Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire (PPAQ) demonstrate concurrent validity and reliability in patients with a variety of cardiac arrhythmias?
The Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire (PPAQ) is a valid and reliable disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure for assessing symptom burden and quality of life in patients with various cardiac arrhythmias.
Supports PPAQ for arrhythmia symptom assessment; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: Disease-specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used to evaluate not only a patient's view of their symptoms, functional status, and health related quality of life, but also clinical benefit of treatments. The Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire (PPAQ) was initially developed as a self-administered, disease-specific PROM for patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) assessing the impact of the arrhythmia and symptoms on patients' daily activities and physical, emotional, and social functioning. Preliminary evidence of content and construct validity has been previously demonstrated, but only in SVT patients in the U.S. and Poland. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the concurrent validity of the PPAQ in patients having a variety of arrhythmias and to explore whether differences in symptoms existed by gender. METHODOLOGY: In this cross-sectional study, adult cardiac arrhythmia outpatients from a tertiary care, academic medical center completed the 6-item PPAQ, the SF-12, a Fatigue Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Included were patients with atrial fibrillation (82.4%), ventricular tachycardia (15.7%), and atrial tachycardia (2%). Descriptive statistics and independent t-tests, pairwise comparisons with Pearson correlations, Goodman Kruskal gamma statistic for ordinal associations, Cronbach's alpha, and Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) were used to determine concurrent construct validity and internal consistency reliability. RESULTS: Participants (n=51) had a mean age of 59.4 years (± 12.6), were majority male (66.7%) and Caucasian (75%). Preliminary evidence of concurrent construct validity was found based on moderate to strong correlations (range from 0.4 to 0.7) between the PPAQ and other validated measures, as well as strong internal reliability (KR-20 of 0.80 and Cronbach's alpha of 0.91). The most common symptoms reported were fatigue (60.8%) and heart fluttering (52.9%). Blurred vision (p<0.04), dizziness (p<0.01), and fatigue (p<0.04) were seen significantly more frequently in men compared to women. CONCLUSIONS: Results present additional evidence of the validity and reliability of the PPAQ. The PPAQ comprehensively measures the burden of the disease from cardiac arrhythmia patients' perspective. Validated, reliable, disease-specific PROMs are needed to direct personalized clinical decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wood et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac arrhythmias (n=51). Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire (PPAQ) vs. Established questionnaires (SF-12, Fatigue VAS, BSI, PHQ-9) was evaluated on Concurrent construct validity and internal consistency reliability. The Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire demonstrated moderate to strong concurrent validity and strong internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.91) for assessing symptom burden in patients with various cardiac arrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: