An International Comparison of the Reliability and Responsiveness of the Duke Health Profile for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients Treated With Alprostadil for Erectile Dysfunction
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9102992 |
|---|---|
| Authors | George R Parkerson (Duke University Hospital, corresponding author), Richard J Willke, Ron D Hays (0000-0001-6697-907X, University of California, Los Angeles) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 56-67 |
| Publication date | 1999-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Care (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948 |
| Publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1097/00005650-199901000-00009 |
| PMID | 10413393 |
| OpenAlex | W2020632702 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 34 |
OBJECTIVES: It is important that health measures are both reliable and responsive to clinical change. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and responsiveness of the physical, mental, and social health scales of the Duke Health Profile (DUKE). METHODS: Impotent males self-administered the Duke Health Profile before and during treatment with alprostadil for erectile dysfunction during a 19-month period. Subjects were 490 patients in the United States and 583 patients in 12 other countries. Each of the three basic Duke Health Profile scales has only five items, and each is heterogeneous because each measures more than one health concept. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates were: physical health, 0.68 for United States and 0.64 for other countries; mental health, 0.62 and 0.52, respectively; and social health, 0.53 and 0.47, respectively. Alprostadil was expected to improve mental health primarily, and results of the study were consistent with this hypothesis. For example, at approximately 14 months from therapy onset, mental health improved for patients both in the United States (standardized response mean, SRM, = 0.17) and other countries (mean SRM = 0.30), whereas physical health worsened in the United States and was unchanged in other countries, and social health was unchanged in the United States and improved in other countries. Maximum responsiveness was shown for mental health in the other countries, where the mean standardized response means at four follow-ups during a 19-month period were 0.11, 0.21, 0.30, and 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the responsiveness of the Duke Health Profile mental health scale
Cronbach's alpha · Erectile dysfunction · Health related quality of life · Mental health · Psychiatry · Psychometrics · Public health · Quality of life (healthcare) · Reliability (semiconductor) · SF-36 · Social determinants of health · Clinical Psychology · Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis · Hormonal and reproductive studies · Internal Medicine · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Sexual function and dysfunction studies · Gerontology
Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design
On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments
The ED-EQoL
Dimensionality, variance composition, and development of a brief form of the duke health profile, and its measurement invariance across five gender identity groups
Characteristics of Adult Primary Care Patients as Predictors of Future Health Services Charges
Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation
Measuring change over time
Solving Measurement Problems With the Rasch Model
Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures
Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire
Statistical Inference for Coefficient Alpha
The Brief Symptom Inventory
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests
Understanding Changes in Health Status
Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation
The Duke Health Profile
Changes in Health After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization
Comparative Measurement Sensitivity of Short and Longer Health Status Instruments
Responsiveness of a Single-Item Indicator Versus a Multi-Item Scale
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
A psychological profile of the sexual dysfunctions
"How we should measure "change
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,2 |
| Citation span | 2001 - 2021 (21) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |