Validación del Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire en atención primaria / Validation of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire in primary care

RESUMEN

Introducción y objetivos. Evaluar la aplicabilidad, la consistencia interna y la validez del Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) en atención primaria, comparándolo con el Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Métodos. Se aplicaron ambos cuestionarios a 589 pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca crónica documentada atendidos por médicos de atención primaria. Analizamos la factibilidad, la consistencia interna y la validez del MLHFQ comparado con el SF-36. Resultados. Respondió los cuestionarios más del 90% de la muestra. El porcentaje de ítems no respondido es bajo. El coeficiente alfa de Cronbach oscila entre 0,79 y 0,94 para las dimensiones del MLHFQ. Del análisis factorial exploratorio, se extraen dos factores que explican una varianza total del 65,8%. Los coeficientes de correlación entre dimensiones similares del MLHFQ y el SF-36 fueron de moderados a altos (–0,43 a –0,73). Las puntuaciones del MLHFQ se asocian significativamente con variables clínicas de gravedad. Conclusiones. En atención primaria el MLHFQ, comparado con el SF-36, muestra buena aceptabilidad y buenas propiedades psicométricas que lo hacen útil para medir la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca crónica (AU)

ABSTRACT

Introduction and objectives. To evaluate the applicability, internal consistency and validity of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) when used in primary care, compared with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey. Methods. The two questionnaires were administered to 589 patients with chronic heart failure who were registered with 97 primary care physicians. The applicability, internal consistency and validity of the MLHFQ were evaluated and comparisons were made with the SF-36. Results. More than 90% of patients completed the questionnaires. The percentage of uncompleted items was low. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 for the various MLHFQ dimensions. Exploratory factorial analysis identified two factors that explained 65.8% of the variance. Moderate to good correlations were observed between similar dimensions of the MLHFQ and SF- 36 (correlation coefficient –0.43 to –0.73). There were significant associations between scores on the MLHFQ and clinical measures of disease severity. Conclusions. When used in primary care, the MLHFQ had a high level of acceptability and good psychometric properties compared with the SF-36. Consequently, it would be useful for assessing health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure (AU)