Abstract
Objective: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ), with the Headache Impact Test–6 item (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches.
Methods: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (N=130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness.
Results: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ’s inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant’s experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2-weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12-weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1).
Conclusions: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache.
Methods: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (N=130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness.
Results: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ’s inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant’s experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2-weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12-weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1).
Conclusions: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1100-1123 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Cephalalgia |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| Early online date | 4 May 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2021 |
Bibliographical note
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).Keywords
- Headache Impact Test
- chronic headache
- outcome measures
- psychometric evaluation
- quality of life
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Clinical Neurology