Psychometric Properties of a Lipodystrophy Scale

Lee, Daniel; Patel, Parul; Sachs, Jennifer; Basinger, Susan; Mathews, W. Christopher; Barber, Randy

doi:10.1089/apc.2006.20.30

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We performed an updated search from 2006-July 2010 for new HIV-specific health status instruments. Results yielded four instruments that appeared to meet our inclusion criteria [37-40]. Three instruments were HRQL/QOL measures; the Missoula-Vitas Quality-of-Life Index developed to assess quality of life in advanced HIV illness in a palliative care setting [37], the Neurological Quality of Life Questionnaire, a general measure of quality of life in HIV infection [38], and the Chronic Illness Quality of Life Ladder developed to assess quality of life across four time periods (past, present, future, and life without a diagnosis of HIV) [39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three instruments were HRQL/QOL measures; the Missoula-Vitas Quality-of-Life Index developed to assess quality of life in advanced HIV illness in a palliative care setting [37], the Neurological Quality of Life Questionnaire, a general measure of quality of life in HIV infection [38], and the Chronic Illness Quality of Life Ladder developed to assess quality of life across four time periods (past, present, future, and life without a diagnosis of HIV) [39]. The fourth instrument was a lipodystrophy scale developed to assess the severity of lipodystrophy from the perspective of individuals living with HIV [40]. Similar to the instruments included in our study, none of these instruments were developed to assess the construct of disability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do existing HIV-specific instruments measure up? Evaluating the ability of instruments to describe disability experienced by adults living with HIV

O’Brien

Bayoumi

Strike

et al. 2010

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite the multitude of health challenges faced by adults living with HIV, we know of no HIV-specific instrument developed for the purpose of describing the health-related consequences of HIV, a concept known as disability. In a previous phase of research, adults living with HIV conceptualized disability as symptoms/impairments, difficulties carrying out day-to-day activities, challenges to social inclusion, and uncertainty that may fluctuate on a daily basis and over the course of living with HIV. In this paper, we describe the extent to which existing HIV-specific health-status instruments capture the experience of disability for adults living with HIV.MethodsWe searched databases from 1980 to 2006 for English language, HIV-specific, self-reported questionnaires consisting of at least two items that were tested for reliability and validity. We then conducted a content analysis to assess how well existing questionnaires describe disability as defined by the Episodic Disability Framework, a framework that conceptualizes this experience from the perspective of adults living with HIV. We matched items of the instruments with categories of the framework to evaluate the extent to which the instruments capture major dimensions of disability in the framework.ResultsWe reviewed 4274 abstracts, of which 30 instruments met the inclusion criteria and were retrieved. Of the four major dimensions of disability, symptoms/impairments were included in all 30 instruments, difficulties with day-to-day activities in 16, challenges to social inclusion in 16, and uncertainty in 9. Seven instruments contained at least 1 item from all 4 dimensions of disability (breadth) however, the comprehensiveness with which the dimensions were represented (depth) varied among the instruments.ConclusionsIn general, symptoms/impairments and difficulties carrying out day-to-day activities were the disability dimensions characterized in greatest depth while uncertainty and challenges to social inclusion were less well represented. Although none of the instruments described the full breadth and depth of disability as conceptualized by the Episodic Disability Framework, they provide a foundation from which to build a measure of disability for adults living with HIV.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do existing HIV-specific instruments measure up? Evaluating the ability of instruments to describe disability experienced by adults living with HIV

O’Brien

Bayoumi

Strike

et al. 2010

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While lipoatrophy is clearly an HIV-and/or HIV-drug-related phenomenon, fat accumulation seems not specific for either. 1,2 Unfortunately, there is neither consensus on the definition of LD, nor agreement on the best method for measuring it. LD is a multidimensional construct and patient versus physician-detected incidence of LD may have variable level of concordance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity of Lipodystrophy Is Associated with Decreased Health-Related Quality of Life

Guaraldi

Murri

Orlando

et al. 2008

AIDS Patient Care and STDs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of lipodystrophy (LD) on quality of life is high, but it has not been demonstrated in literature. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of LD on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in HIV-infected people on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Patients with LD phenotype defined by the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) were included. Three different methods were used to define LD severity: both patient and physician evaluation using the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) severity scales and the Lipodystrophy Case Definition (LDCD). The HRQOL was evaluated by MOS-HIV Health Survey. Four hundred one patients on HAART for a mean of 108 Ϯ 52 months were evaluated for LD at the Metabolic Clinic of Modena and Reggio Emilia University were enrolled from January 2003 to July 2006. According to self-perceived or physician-based HOPS, 106 (26.5%) and 122 (30.4%) patients had severe LD. Females had significantly more severe LD. Few HRQOL scores correlated to LD severity using the physician-based score (both HOPSph and LDCD), while all the HRQOL scores correlated with LD severity when a patient-based score was used (HOPSpt). In multiple linear regression analysis, Mental Health HRQOL score, gender, body mass index, age, body image satisfaction were independent predictors of patient-based (HOPSpt) LD, while none of the HRQOL scores, but female gender, age, waist-to-hip ratio, limb fat, and body image satisfaction were correlated with physician-estimated HOPSph LD severity. HRQOL was strongly correlated with LD severity when a patientbased score was used. For an overall assessment of the impact of LD on HIV-infected people, both patientbased and physician-based measures are required. 577

show abstract

“…Table 1 lists the characteristics of the included PROMs, with details of the subscales provided in Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1. A total of 88 PROMs were reported in the 152 included studies, and these PROMs can be divided into 8 categories (improved based on the initial taxonomy developed by Engler et al [22]): HRQoL (24/88, 27% of PROMs) , symptoms (10/88, 11% of PROMs) [103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120], stigma (15/88, 17% of PROMs) , psychological (8/88, 9% of PROMs) [143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151], body and facial appearance (5/88, 6% of PROMs) [152][153][154][155][156], treatment (17/88, 19% of PROMs) , social support (3/88, 3% of PROMs) [174][175][176], and self-management and self-care (6/88, 7% of PROMs) [177][178][179][180][181][182]. All the included PROMs were tools self-administered by people livi...…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Promsmentioning

confidence: 99%

HIV-Specific Reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties

Wang¹,

Zhu²,

Duan³

et al. 2022

JMIR Public Health Surveill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The management of people living with HIV and AIDS is multidimensional and complex. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been increasingly recognized to be the key factor for providing patient-centered health care to meet the lifelong needs of people living with HIV and AIDS from diagnosis to death. However, there is currently no consensus on a PROM recommended for health care providers and researchers to assess health outcomes in people living with HIV and AIDS. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and categorize the available validated HIV-specific PROMs in adults living with HIV and AIDS and to assess these PROMs using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. Methods This systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search of 3 recommended databases (PubMed, Embase, and PsychINFO) was conducted on January 15, 2021. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric property of HIV-specific PROMs in adults living with HIV and AIDS and met the eligibility criteria. The PROMs were assessed for 9 psychometric properties, evaluated in each included study following the COSMIN methodology by assessing the following: the methodological quality assessed using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist; overall rating of results; level of evidence assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach; and level of recommendation. Results A total of 88 PROMs classified into 8 categories, assessing the psychometric properties of PROMs for adults living with HIV and AIDS, were identified in 152 studies including 79,213 people living with HIV and AIDS. The psychometric properties of most included PROMs were rated with insufficient evidence. The PROMs that received class A recommendation were the Poz Quality of Life, HIV Symptom Index or Symptoms Distress Module of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group, and People Living with HIV Resilience Scale. In addition, because of a lack of evidence, recommendations regarding use could not be made for most of the remaining assessed PROMs (received class B recommendation). Conclusions This systematic review recommends 3 PROMs to assess health outcomes in adults living with HIV and AIDS. However, all these PROMs have some shortcomings. In addition, most of the included PROMs do not have sufficient evidence for assessing their psychometric properties and require a more comprehensive validation of the psychometric properties in the future to provide more scientific evidence. Thus, our findings may provide a reference for the selection of high-quality HIV-specific PROMs by health care providers and researchers for clinical practice and research.

show abstract

Psychometric Properties of a Lipodystrophy Scale

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

How do existing HIV-specific instruments measure up? Evaluating the ability of instruments to describe disability experienced by adults living with HIV

How do existing HIV-specific instruments measure up? Evaluating the ability of instruments to describe disability experienced by adults living with HIV

Severity of Lipodystrophy Is Associated with Decreased Health-Related Quality of Life

HIV-Specific Reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About