|
Abhasnee
Sobhonslidsuk, Patchareeya Satitpornkul, Chaleaw Sripetch,
Department of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University,
Bangkok, 10400, Thailand
Chatchawan Silpakit, Ronnachai Kongsakon, Department of
Psychiatry, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok,
10400, Thailand
Correspondence to: Abhasnee Sobhonslidsuk, M.D., Department
of Medicine, Ramathibodi hospital, 270 Praram 6 road, Bangkok 10400,
Thailand.
teasb@mahidol.ac.th
Telephone: +66-2-201 1387
Fax: +66-2-965 1769
Received: 2003-12-10
Accepted: 2004-01-16
Abstract
AIM: Quality of life (QOL) is a concept that incorporates many
aspects of life beyond “health”. The chronic liver disease
questionnaire (CLDQ) was developed to evaluate the impact of chronic
liver diseases (CLD) on QOL. The objectives of this study were to
translate and validate a liver specific questionnaire, the CLDQ.
METHODS: The CLDQ was formally translated from the original version
to Thai language with permission. The translation process included
forward translation, back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and
a pretest. Reliability and validity of the translated version was
examined in CLD patients. Enrolled subjects included CLD and normal
subjects with age- and sex-matched. Collected data were demography,
physical findings and biochemical tests. All subjects were asked to
complete the translated versions of CLDQ and SF-36, which was
previously validated. Cronbach’s alpha and test-retest were
performed for reliability analysis. One-way Anova or non-parametric
method was used to determine discriminant validity. Spearman’s
rank correlation was used to assess convergent validity. P -value
<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 200 subjects were recruited into the study, with
150 CLD and 50 normal subjects. Mean ages (SD) were 47.3(11.7) and
49.1(8.5) years, respectively. The number of chronic hepatitis:
cirrhosis was 76:74, and the ratio of cirrhotic patients classified
as Child A:B:C was 37(50%): 26(35%): 11(15%). Cronbach’s alpha of
the overall CLDQ scores was 0.96 and of all domains were higher than
0.93. Item-total correlation was >0.45. Test-retest reliability
done at 1 to 4 wk apart was 0.88 for the average CLDQ score and from
0.68 to 0.90 for domain scores. The CLDQ was found to have
discriminant validity. The highest scores of CLDQ domains were in
the normal group, scores were lower in the compensated group and
lowest in the decompensated group. The significant correlation
between domains of the CLDQ and SF-36 was found. The average CLDQ
score was strongly correlated with the general health domain of
SF-36. (P=0.69: P=0.01).
CONCLUSION: The translated CLDQ is valid and applicable in Thais
with CLD. CLDQ reveals that QOL in these patients is lower than that
in normal population. QOL is more impaired in advanced stage of CLD.
Sobhonslidsuk A,
Silpakit C, Kongsakon R, Satitpornkul P, Sripetch C. Chronic liver
disease questionnaire: Translation and validation in Thais. World J
Gastroenterol
2004; 10(13): 1954-1957
http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/10/1954.asp
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization gave the definition of health as
being not only the absence of disease and debility but also the
presence of physical, mental and social well-being[1].
Quality of life (QOL) is a concept that incorporates many aspects of
an individual’s experience, general well-being, satisfaction,
social and physical function[2]. By definition, QOL is
subjective and multi-dimension. It can be influenced by
socioeconomic factors, age, gender, presence of disease and
treatment[2]. QOL examines how patients experience and
perceive. Its results provide a basis for holistic view of the
patient and complements the organic outcomes. QOL has been evaluated
in a large number of chronic medical and gastrointestinal
conditions, such as dyspepsia, inflammatory bowel diseases, liver
diseases, etc.[3-7]. Well-developed and validated
questionnaires have been used as instruments for QOL measurement.
Generic and disease-specific instruments measure different aspects
of QOL. It is encouraged to use both instruments in clinical
research to gain substantial information[5]. Since the
development of the first liver-specific questionnaire, the chronic
liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ)[7], the QOL research
in chronic liver diseases have been steadily reported[6,8-12].
Previous studies in Western patients showed that chronic liver
disease (CLD) had negative impact on QOL, and QOL worsened as the
severity of disease increased[8,9,12-14]. The study of
QOL in gastrointestinal and liver diseases has hardly received
attention in Asian population. Our study was aimed to translate and
validate a disease specific questionnaire, the CLDQ, to be used in
study of QOL in Thai population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethics
This study received ethics approval from the ethic committee
of our hospital. All subjects provided written consent before
participation.
Subjects
Between June 1 and September 31, 2003, 150 Thai patients
with chronic liver diseases who attended gastroenterological clinic
and 50 normal subjects were invited to participate in the study.
Chronic liver diseases included chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis.
Chronic hepatitis was defined by an elevation of serum transaminases
above 1.5 times of upper normal limit for longer than 6 mo and
cirrhosis by definition had biochemical and radiological findings
consistent with cirrhosis[15]. The staging of cirrhosis
was categorized according to Child-Pugh classification: Child
(class) A, B and C[16]. Causes of chronic liver disease
were divided into viral hepatitis, alcohol, viral hepatitis
combining with alcohol, non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFLD) and
others. Chronic liver disease due to alcohol was defined by the
regular intake of alcohol (80 g/d in men, and 40 g/d in women)[17].
History of other medical illness was taken from medical records.
Exclusion criteria were concomitant presence of hepatic
encephalopathy, other active medical diseases, malignancy, being
treated with antiviral agents and those who refused to give consent.
QOL instruments
CLDQ
The CLDQ is the first liver specific instrument developed by
Younossi et al.[7]. The CLDQ includes 29 items in
the following domains: abdominal symptoms, fatigue, systemic
symptoms, activity, emotional function and worry. The response of
CLDQ results in 1 to 7 scales: ranging from “all of the time” to
“none of the time”[7]. The original CLDQ was shown to
have constructed validity from the studies in chronic liver diseases[7,12].
Translation of CLDQ
After the translation permission was granted, the original
version of CLDQ was translated into Thai according to the
standardized guidelines proposed in 1993[18]. Forward
translation from the original English version was performed
independently by two Thai native speakers. Reconciliation of both
forward versions was done subsequently. A native English speaker
living in Thailand who understood Thai language quite well and did
not have knowledge about QOL carried out back translation. The
semifinal version derived from reconciliation of the original, back
translation and forward translation. A pretest in 10 patients with
chronic liver diseases was performed. The final version was obtained
after the step of cross-cultural adaptation.
Assessment of translated CLDQ
The CLDQ and SF-36 questionnaires were administered in 150
patients with chronic liver diseases and in 50 normal subjects. The
permission to use the SF-36, a generic questionnaire, in this study
was granted from QualityMetric Inc. The study version of SF-36 was
previously tested and validated in Thai population[19].
CLDQ was repeated in 25 patients in 1-3 wk apart for test-retest
analysis. Reliability was determined from Cronbach’s alpha
(reliability coefficient) and test-retest. One-way Anova or
non-parametric method was used to determine discriminant validity of
scores among different stages of liver diseases. Spearman’s rank
correlation was used to assess test-retest and convergent validity.
A P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS
Clinical and demographic data
One hundred and fifty patients with CLD and 50 normal
subjects were enrolled into the study. Mean ages (SD) of CLD and
controlled groups were 47.3(11.7) and 49.1(8.5) years (P=0.40).
Of the 150 patients with CLD, 76(51%) had chronic hepatitis and the
remainder had cirrhosis. Summarized clinical and demographic data
are shown in Table 1. Patients with cirrhosis were older, more
unemployed and had lower education levels than those with chronic
hepatitis. Viral hepatitis and regular alcohol drinking were the
most common causes of CLD. Hepatitis B virus was the major cause of
chronic viral hepatitis in this study (68.1%).
Table 1
Clinical and demographic data
| Characteristics |
Normal
(n=50) |
Chronic
hepatitis (n=76) |
Cirrhosis
(n=74) |
P-value |
| mean±SD,
yr |
49.1
(8.5) |
43.1
(12.6) |
51.6
(8.9) |
0.00 |
| Men,
n (%) |
28
(56) |
49
(64.5) |
47
(63.5) |
0.60 |
| Married,
n (%) |
40
(81.6) |
46
(62.2) |
52
(81.3) |
0.01 |
| Education,
n (%)1 |
|
|
|
|
| ≥Bachelor
degree |
20
(40) |
29
(39.2) |
10
(15.6) |
0.004 |
| Career,
n (%)1 |
|
|
|
|
| -
White collar |
42
(91.3) |
44
(69.8) |
28
(50) |
0.00 |
| -
Blue collar |
1
(2.2) |
4
(6.3) |
9
(16) |
|
| -
Unemployed |
3
(6.5) |
15
(23.8) |
19
(34) |
|
| Financial
burden (+),
n (%)1 |
22
(44) |
30
(40.5) |
29
(45.3) |
0.84 |
| Etiologies,
n (%) |
|
|
|
|
| -
Viral hepatitis |
|
52
(68.4) |
41
(55.4) |
0.00 |
| -
Alcohol |
|
4
(5.3) |
20
(27) |
|
| -
Viral hepatitis and alcohol |
|
2
(2.6) |
7
(9.5) |
|
| -
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease |
|
11
(14.5) |
2
(2.7) |
|
| -
Others |
|
7
(9.2) |
4
(5.4) |
|
| Child-Pugh
Classification, n (%) |
|
|
|
|
| -
Child A |
|
|
37
(50) |
|
| -
Child B |
|
|
26
(35) |
|
| -
Child C |
|
|
11
(15) |
|
1Incomplete
data.
Reliability
Measurement of internal consistency
Cronbach’s alpha of overall scores was 0.96, which was
above the acceptable level of 0.70 for comparison between groups[20].
Cronbach’s alpha of domains was higher than 0.93. Item-total
correlation (omit that item) was above 0.45 (Table 2).
Test-retest
Spearman’s rank correlation
of average CLDQ was 0.88 (P=0.00) and domains of CLDQ was
higher than 0.67 (P=0.00).
Table
2 Reliability of CLDQ
| CLDQ
domains |
Mean
score (SD) |
Cronbach’s
alpha (if item deleted) |
Test-retest
reliability |
| Correlation
coefficient |
P-value |
| Abdominal
symptoms |
5.3
(1.3) |
0.95 |
0.85 |
0.00 |
| Fatigue |
4.7
(1.2) |
0.94 |
0.90 |
0.00 |
| Systemic
symptoms |
5.3
(1.1) |
0.94 |
0.77 |
0.00 |
| Activity |
5.3
(1.3) |
0.94 |
0.68 |
0.00 |
| Emotional
function |
5.2
(1.1) |
0.94 |
0.80 |
0.00 |
| Worry |
5.3
(1.4) |
0.94 |
0.78 |
0.00 |
| Average
CLDQ |
5.2
(1.1) |
0.93 |
0.88 |
0.00 |
Table
3 Discriminant
validity among different groups of patients (mean±SD)
| CLDQ
domains |
Normal
(n=50) |
Compensated
group (n=113) |
Decompensated
group (n=37) |
P-value |
| Abdominal
symptoms |
5.8
(1.2) |
5.3
(1.1) |
4.6
(1.6) |
0.00 |
| Fatigue |
5.4
(1.0) |
4.6
(1.1) |
4.0
(1.4) |
0.00 |
| Systemic
symptoms |
5.9
(0.9) |
5.2
(1.1) |
4.7
(1.1) |
0.00 |
| Activity |
5.9
(1.0) |
5.4
(1.1) |
4.4
(1.5) |
0.00 |
| Emotional
function |
5.7
(0.9) |
5.1
(1.1) |
4.8
(1.4) |
0.001 |
| Worry |
6.3
(0.8) |
5.2
(1.4) |
4.4
(1.6) |
0.00 |
| Average
CLDQ |
5.8
(0.8) |
5.2
(1.0) |
4.5
(1.2) |
0.00 |
| SF-36
domains |
|
|
|
|
| Physical
function |
79.4
(14.0) |
74.1
(20.2) |
59.1
(21.5) |
0.00 |
| Role
physical |
79.5
(34.5) |
59.3
(41.1) |
34.5
(42.2) |
0.00 |
| Bodily
pain |
76.0
(14.3) |
69.4
(22.8) |
57.7
(23.8) |
0.001 |
| General
health |
68.6
(19.1) |
51.3
(24.2) |
42.0
(22.9) |
0.00 |
| Vitality |
66.1
(14.2) |
63.3
(16.3) |
57.2
(14.7) |
0.03 |
| Social
function |
85.5
(16.6) |
77.5
(20.0) |
74.3
(22.0) |
0.02 |
| Role
emotion |
78.0
(36.0) |
59.3
(42.9) |
39.6
(45.7) |
0.00 |
| Mental
health |
75.2
(15.4) |
69.5
(17.7) |
65.7
(17.9) |
0.03 |
Table
4 Correlations
between CLDQ and SF-36
| CLDQ
domains |
SF-36
domains |
| Physical
function |
Role
physical |
Bodily
pain |
General health |
Vitality |
Social
function |
Role
emotion |
Mental
health |
| Abdominal
symptoms
|
0.281
|
0.321
|
0.481
|
0.491
|
0.451
|
0.351
|
0.381
|
0.531
|
| Fatigue
|
0.441
|
0.521
|
0.491
|
0.611
|
0.581
|
0.541
|
0.631
|
0.591
|
| Systemic
symptoms
|
0.481
|
0.501
|
0.631
|
0.551
|
0.491
|
0.481
|
0.541
|
0.501
|
| Activity
|
0.491
|
0.451
|
0.471
|
0.541
|
0.471
|
0.441
|
0.501
|
0.501
|
| Emotional
function
|
0.381
|
0.411
|
0.461
|
0.591
|
0.621
|
0.591
|
0.541
|
0.681
|
| Worry
|
0.381
|
0.481
|
0.411
|
0.681
|
0.531
|
0.481
|
0.491
|
0.631
|
| Average
CLDQ
|
0.471
|
0.521
|
0.561
|
0.691
|
0.611
|
0.551
|
0.601
|
0.671
|
1P=0.01.
Validity
Discriminant
validity
The various stages of liver diseases in this study were
rearranged as normal, compensated (= chronic hepatitis + Child A
cirrhosis) and decompensated (= Child B and Child C cirrhosis)
groups. A comparison of domain scores in different groups was
performed. All domain scores of CLDQ and SF-36 significantly
decreased from normal group to compensated and decompensated groups
(Table 3). The CLDQ was found to have good discriminant validity.
Convergen
validity
Each domain of CLDQ correlated with all domains of SF-36 with
correlation coefficient (r) >0.27: P=0.01 as shown in
Table 4. The average CLDQ score was strongly correlated with the
general health domain of SF-36 (P=0.69: P=0.01).
Influence
of disease severity on HRQOL
The
CLDQ scores in Thai patients with CLD deteriorated as severity of
chronic liver disease increased similarly to previous reports in
Western patients[8,9,12-14]. However, we found that average CLDQ,
emotional function and activity scores in chronic hepatitis were
lower than those in Child A cirrhosis (5.2(1.1) vs 5.7(1.2),
5.0(1.1) vs 5.5(1.0) and 5.0(0.9) vs 5.4(0.9), respectively;
P-values were 0.04, 0.02 and 0.03.
DISCUSSION
The
original CLDQ is a well-developed and validated disease-specific
questionnaire for measuring QOL in CLD[7]. It consists of 29 items
which are a suitable number for exploring QOL in patients who have a
brief visit to a clinic[7]. It has 7 linkert scale type of
answers[7]. To find a standardized disease-specific questionnaire
for researches involving QOL in CLD, we translated the CLDQ from the
original English to Thai versions by following the proposed
guideline[18]. Simple translation of questionnaire from one language
to the other without concerning language difference, culture context
and lifestyle, jeopardizes the sensibility of the original version.
The translated CLDQ used the language which even poorly educated
Thais were able to understand the questionnaire meaning, and it was
aimed for conceptual and semantic equivalences with the original
concept. After the translation and cross-cultural adaptation, the
reliability and validity of the translated version were proved to be
maintained. Reliability of the CLDQ was confirmed from internal
consistency and test-retest. Cronbach’s alpha of overall CLDQ was
higher than 0.70, indicating that the translated version had
acceptable reliability[20]. Chronic liver diseases greatly impacted
QOL, which was confirmed by both generic and disease-specific
questionnaires. We arranged chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis Child A
into “compensated” group, and Child B and C cirrhosis into
“decompensated” group according to the reserved function of the
liver. The results from generic and disease-specific questionnaires
were in agreement with the fact that a markedly decrease of QOL was
seen in advanced stages of chronic liver diseases. On the other
hand, it showed that the average CLDQ, activity and emotion function
domains in chronic hepatitis were significantly lower than those in
Child A cirrhosis. This finding may point out that chronic hepatitis
had impairment in some parts of QOL more than Child A cirrhosis
which may be a more stable condition. We could not compare the QOL
between Child B and C cirrhosis due to the small sample size in both
groups. The CLDQ domains correlated significantly with every domain
of SF-36. The strongest correlation was seen in the relationship
between the average CLDQ score and the general health domain of
SF-36. The effect of other demographic and clinical factors on QOL
of CLD was inconsistently reported. From a previous study, old age
was inversely correlated with physical function of SF-36[8].
However, a subsequent study revealed that younger patients showed
more impairment in QOL[9]. Several studies revealed that chronic
viral hepatitis, especially viral hepatitis C-related decreased QOL
greater than cholestatic or alcoholic liver disease[8,12]. Other
socioeconomic factors, e.g. education, career and financial status
may affect QOL as well. The validated CLDQ is found to be a
satisfactory tool for future research of QOL in Thai population.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The
authors would like to thank Thailand Research Fund (TRF) for the
research grant, and Professor Anya Khanthavit for his guidance and
comments.
REFERENCES
1
WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organization. In: World
Health Organization. Handbook of basic documents. 5th
ed. Geneva:
Palais des Nations 1952: 3-20
2
Glise H, Wilklund I. Health-related quality of life and
gastrointestinal disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2002; 17(Suppl):
S72-S84
3
Talley NJ, Weaver AL, Zinsmeister AR. Impact of functional
dyspepsia on quality of life. Dig Dis Sci 1995; 40: 584-589
4
Irvine EJ, Feagan B, Rochon J, Archambault A, Fedorak RN,
Groll A, Kinnear D, Saibil F, McDonald JW. Quality of life: a
valid
and reliable measure of therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of
inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology
1994; 106: 287-296
5
Younossi ZM, Guyatt G. Quality -of- life assessments and
chronic liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 1037-1041
6
Borgaonkar MR, Irvine EJ. Quality of life measurement in
gastrointestinal and liver disorders. Gut 2000; 47: 444-454
7
Younossi ZM, Guyatt G, Kiwi M, Boparai N, King D. Development
of a disease specific questionnaire to measure health
related
quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 1999;
45: 295-300
8
Younossi ZM, Boparai N, McCormick M, Price LL, Guyatt G.
Assessment of utilities and health-related quality of life in
patients with chronic liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:
579-583
9
Marchesini G, Bianchi G, Amodio P, Salerno F, Merli M,
Panella C, Loguercio C, Apolone G, Niero M, Abbiati R. Factors
associated with poor health-related quality of life of patients with
cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 170-178
10
Chong CA, Gulamhussein A, Heathcote EJ, Lilly L, Sherman M,
Naglie G, Krahn M. Health-state utilities and quality of life
in
hepatitis C patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 630-638
11
Bianchi G, Loguercio C, Sgarbi D, Abbiati R, Brunetti N, De
Simone T, Zoli M, Marchesini G. Reduced quality of life of
patients
with hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Liver Dis 2003; 35: 46-54
12
Younossi ZM, Boparai N, Price LL, Kiwi ML, McCormick M,
Guyatt G. Health-related quality of life in chronic liver disease:
the impact of type and severity of disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;
96: 2199-2205
13
Arguedas MR, DeLawrence TG, McGuire BM. Influence of hepatic
encephalopathy on health-related quality of life in
patients with
cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci 2003; 48: 1622-1626
14
Cordoba J, Flavia M, Jacas C, Sauleda S, Esteban JI, Vargas
V, Estaban R, Guardia J. Quality of life and cognitive function
in
hepatitis C at different stages of liver disease. J Hepatol 2003;
39:231-238
15
Leevy CM, Sherlock S, Tygstrup N, Zetterman R. Disease of the
liver and biliary tract. Standardization of nomenclature,
diagnostic
criteria and prognosis. New York, Raven Press 1994: 61-68
16
Sherlock S, Dooley J. Disease of the liver and biliary
system. 10th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science 1997: 135-180
17
Sherlock S, Dooley J. Disease of the liver and biliary
system. 10th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science 1997: 385-403
18
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural
adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature
review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidermiol 1993; 46:
1417-1432
19
Kongsakon R, Silpakit C. Thai version of the medical outcome
study in 36 items short form health survey: an instrument
for
measuring clinical results in mental disorder patients. Rama Med J
2000; 23: 8-19
20
McDowell I, Nevell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating
scales and questionnaire. New York: Oxford University Press
1987
Edited
by Wang XL
Proofread by Xu FM
| |