RNPilotNursing open2021

Living with Long term condition Scale: A pilot validation study of a new person centred tool in the UK.

Leire Ambrosio, Kelly Hislop-Lennie, Hannah Barker and 2 others

PMID 33723922

WHAT IT FOUND

The English version of a questionnaire about living with long-term conditions was acceptable to 49 patients, but some parts scored inconsistently and several items were unclear or culturally awkward.

Key findings

01The English questionnaire had missing data only for item 23 and no floor or ceiling effects.

02Internal consistency varied by domain, with Cronbach's alpha values from 0.50 to 0.84.

03The scale detected differences by type of long-term condition but not by gender, marital status, education or employment.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This was a pilot validation in only 49 self-selected community patients, not the planned main validation, so the psychometric results are preliminary. The sample excluded people who were hospitalised, people with cognitive deterioration or current psychiatric disorders, and people who could not read or answer questionnaires, so it does not speak to those groups. Some psychometric results did not meet the paper's own criteria, including a Cronbach's alpha of 0.50 for self-management and item-total correlations as low as -0.14. Data collection changed from face-to-face to telephone during COVID-19, which the authors say could add variability. A researcher was present while participants completed self-reported questionnaires, which could have influenced answers. The study reports scale properties, not evidence that using the scale changes nursing assessment, care pathways or patient outcomes.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The supplied metadata lists non-U.S. government research support, but the article text does not name the funder; one author is described as responsible for funding the project.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that the English scale is validated or that using it will improve nursing assessment. It was a pilot in 49 self-selected community patients, and some parts did not meet the paper's own consistency criteria, so the main validation is still needed.

Read it on PubMed →