The development and validation of the Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire

Arietta Spinou, Richard J. Siegert, Wei-jie Guan, Amit S. Patel, Harry R. Gosker, Kai K. Lee, Caroline Elston, Michael R. Loebinger, Robert Wilson, Rachel Garrod, Surinder S. Birring*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

43 Citations (Web of Science)
32 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Health-related quality of life or health status is significantly impaired in bronchiectasis. There is a paucity of brief, simple-to-use, disease-specific health status measures. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire (BHQ), a new health status measure that is brief and generates a single overall score.

Patients with bronchiectasis were recruited from two outpatient clinics, during a clinically stable stage. The development of the questionnaire followed three phases: item generation and item reduction using Rasch analysis, validation, and repeatability testing. The BHQ was translated into 11 languages using standardised methodology.

206 patients with bronchiectasis completed a preliminary 65-item questionnaire. 55 items were removed due to redundancy or poor fit to the Rasch model. The final version of the BHQ consisted of 10 items. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.85). Convergent validity of the BHQ with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire was high (r=-0.82; p

The BHQ is a brief, valid and repeatable, self-completed health status questionnaire for bronchiectasis that generates a single total score. It can be used in the clinic to assess bronchiectasis from the patient's perspective.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1601532
Number of pages11
JournalEuropean Respiratory Journal
Volume49
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2017

Keywords

  • QUALITY-OF-LIFE
  • LEICESTER COUGH QUESTIONNAIRE
  • INTERSTITIAL LUNG-DISEASE
  • GEORGES RESPIRATORY QUESTIONNAIRE
  • CYSTIC FIBROSIS BRONCHIECTASIS
  • MINIMAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE
  • PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSES
  • K-BILD
  • SEVERITY

Cite this