Why the study?
Does the AFQLQ v.2 questionnaire reliably and reproducibly measure quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does the AFQLQ v.2 questionnaire reliably and reproducibly measure quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation?
The updated AFQLQ v.2 is a highly reproducible and reliable instrument for assessing the multidimensional quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation.
AFQLQ v.2 reproducibility supports expanded AF quality-of-life assessment; leaves open clinical adoption pending larger validation.
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the patients' quality of life. Specific questionnaires enable the evaluation of relevant events. We previously developed a questionnaire to assess the quality of life of patients with AF (AFQLQ version 1), which was reviewed in this study, and new domains were added. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the reproducibility of the AFQLQ version 2 (AFQLQ v.2), which included the domains of fatigue, illness perception and well-being. METHODS: We applied 160 questionnaires (AFQLQ v.2 and SF-36) to 40 patients, at baseline and 15 days after, to measure inter- and intraobserver reproducibility. The analysis of quality of life stability was determined by test-retest, applying the Bartko intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha test. RESULTS: The total score of the test-retest (n = 40) had an ICC of 0.98 in the AFQLQ v.2, and of 0.94 in the SF36. In assessing the intra- and interobserver reproducibility of the AFQLQ v.2, the ICC reliability was 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. The internal consistency had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.82, compatible with good agreement of the AFQLQ v.2. CONCLUSION: The AFQLQ v.2 performed better than its previous version. Similarly, the domains added contributed to make it more comprehensive and robust to assess the quality of life of patients with AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moreira et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: