Psychometric properties of the Chilean version of the quality of life questionnaire for multiple myeloma.
Luz Alejandra Lorca, Cinara Sacomori, Camila Peña and 5 others
PMID 38716906WHAT IT FOUND
A Chilean Spanish questionnaire for quality of life in multiple myeloma appears usable: it reflects patients' symptoms, function and future concerns, but some parts are less dependable, so do not rely on every score alone.
Key findings
01The full questionnaire had high overall reliability, and four of five expected comparisons between patient groups were confirmed.
02The disease symptoms scale moved strongly with fatigue and pain, and higher symptom scores were linked to worse physical, role, emotional, social, cognitive and global health scores.
03No expected difference was found between patients with and without vertebral fractures.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat 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.
What it does not show
This was a cross-sectional validation study, so it did not test whether the questionnaire changes over time or detects response to treatment. Concurrent validity was not assessed because no comparable instrument was available. Complete treatment duration records were unavailable, so treatment duration could not be controlled. Some individual scales had only moderate reliability, especially treatment side effects at 0.538, and body image had no reported internal consistency value. The sample came from two public hospitals in Chile and excluded patients who could not read Spanish or had cognitive or hearing problems, so results may not apply to other countries or to patients who cannot complete self-report. The questionnaires were applied face to face by study staff, which may differ from routine self-administration. The study did not test whether using the questionnaire improves clinical outcomes.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that the questionnaire improves quality of life or that it detects every important problem. It was a validation study without responsiveness or concurrent validity testing, and several scales had only moderate reliability.