Advertisment
Indian Journal of Nephrology About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Current Issue | Archives| Ahead of print | Search |Instructions |  Editorial Board  

Users Online:712

Official publication of the Indian Society of Nephrology
  Search
 
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~  Article in PDF (532 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Methods
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1074    
    Printed114    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded124    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 316-320
 

Validation of kidney disease quality of life short form 36 (KDQOL-SF™) in malayalam among patients undergoing haemodialysis in South Kerala


1 Department of Community Medicine, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India
2 Department of Nephrology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India

Date of Submission26-Apr-2019
Date of Acceptance05-Sep-2019
Date of Web Publication11-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. L Manju
Department of Community Medicine, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum - 695 581, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijn.IJN_139_19

Rights and Permissions

  Abstract 


Introduction: Hemodialysis is the most common mode of therapy worldwide for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is used as a life-sustaining therapy for most of the patients. Studies proved that dialysis affects the Quality of life (QOL) of patients. Health-related quality of life has been increasingly recognized as an important medical outcome in patients with CKD. Kidney disease quality of life short form (KDQOL-SF™) is developed by RAND to assess the QOL in CKD patients. This study was conducted to translate and validate the questionnaire KDQOL-SF™ in Malayalam. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted among the patients who were undergoing dialysis in Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research foundation, Trivandrum. The translation was done according the specifications given by RAND. A sample of 112 patients studied. Statistical analysis was done for evaluating item internal consistency, item discriminant validity, equality of item-scale correlations, scale level reliability, and validity. Scale level descriptive statistics were computed. Results: Item internal consistency was more than 0.4 for all scales except a few. Item-level discriminant validity was 100% for almost all scales. Scale level reliability and validity were examined; all scales met the required internal consistency criteria. The overall reliability of the tool was 0.81. Scale level reliability varies from 0.71 to 0.92, which support item homogeneity and internal consistency across scales. Overall mean health rating score was 53.43 ± 11.48.Conclusion: The Malayalam version of KDQOL-SF™ is reliable and valid which can be used for measuring the health-related quality of life of Malayalam speaking CKD patients.


Keywords: Dialysis, quality of life, questionnaire, reliability, translation, validity


How to cite this article:
Manju L, Joseph J, Beevi N. Validation of kidney disease quality of life short form 36 (KDQOL-SF™) in malayalam among patients undergoing haemodialysis in South Kerala. Indian J Nephrol 2020;30:316-20

How to cite this URL:
Manju L, Joseph J, Beevi N. Validation of kidney disease quality of life short form 36 (KDQOL-SF™) in malayalam among patients undergoing haemodialysis in South Kerala. Indian J Nephrol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 30];30:316-20. Available from: https://www.indianjnephrol.org/text.asp?2020/30/5/316/278112





  Introduction Top


In literature, the term “quality of life” is also often referred to as “well-being”. World Health Organization defines Quality of Life as individuals' perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.[1] Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide health problem. One potential outcome of CKD is end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring costly renal replacement therapy in the form of dialysis or transplantation. The main cause of CKD is diabetes and hypertension. Since the prevalence of these chronic diseases are increasing in India, and about 25–40% of these subjects may develop CKD, the ESRD burden will rise and the health care system would need to take care of them.[2] A study conducted by Singh et al. reported the prevalence of CKD in India of 17.2%.[3] Hemodialysis is the most common mode of therapy worldwide, at least 80% of patients are on this mode of therapy.[4] It is used as a life-sustaining therapy for most of the patients. Studies proved that dialysis affect the Quality of life (QOL) of patients. Health related quality of life has been increasingly recognized as an important medical outcome in patients with CKD.[5] There are various tools available to measure the QOL, disease specific tools are also available. Kidney disease quality of life short form is developed by RAND to assess the QOL in CKD patients.[6],[7] It was translated in many languages, but not in Malayalam. The objective of the study was to translate and validate the KDQOL-SF™ questionnaire into Malayalam.


  Methods Top


Translation

The questionnaire was translated into Malayalam following the specifications provided by RAND Health.[8] Translation was done by a certified professional translator. The translated questionnaire was reviewed by medical professionals to check the accuracy of the terms used. Back translation was also done by another professional translator. The translated and back translated questionnaires were reviewed by reviewers. Any discrepancy in the translated version was resolved during this phase. During the translation phase suitable cultural adaptations were made to make the questionnaire suitable for Kerala context.[9] The final version was prepared after a pilot study.

Tool

The questionnaire consists of 36 items describing the perception of health state during the last 4 weeks such as symptoms and problems, effects of kidney disease on daily life, burden of kidney disease, work status, cognitive function, quality of social interaction, sexual function, sleep, social support, dialysis staff encouragement, patient satisfaction, physical functioning, role-physical, pain, general health, emotional well being, role-emotional, social function, energy/fatigue. Background information of the patient such as gender, income level, education, number of medicines per day, etc. were also included. Scoring rules given in KDQOL-SF™ user's manual were followed.[7] The pre-coded items were transformed into 0-100 scale, with higher score representing better quality of life.

Data collection

A cross sectional study was conducted among the patients who were undergoing dialysis in Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research foundation, Trivandrum after obtaining the ethical committee approval. The study period was from February 2017 to August 2018. The purpose of the study was explained to the patients and assured them regarding the confidentiality of the data collected. Patients were recruited after obtaining the written informed consent. The KDQOL-SF™ questionnaire was given to the patient after explaining it and asked to fill it back during the next dialysis session. One twenty five questionnaires were distributed, 112 were returned. Incomplete questionnaires were filled by the trained staff during the next dialysis session after having a friendly interaction with the patient. Only very few patients answered the three questions related to sexual activity. Majority of the people dislike discussing sexual activities openly; hence, we ignored those questions during this phase and excluded from analysis.

Inclusion criteria

Age >18 yrs. Diagnosed with ESRD. Dialysis treatment at least for three months.

Exclusion criteria

Too ill to take part or if they had significant co-morbidity such that their predominant treatment was for another illness.

Sample size

Sample size is 112. According to Peat et al.,[10] a sample of 100 or more is recommended for reliability and validity studies.

Sampling technique

Consecutive sampling.

Statistical analysis

For statistical analysis SPSS software version 15(Statistical Package for the Social SciencesInc, Chicago, IL, USA) was used. Reliability of the tool was estimated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient on the whole and for each domain. The value of Cronbach's alpha more than 0.7 is considered as having high internal consistency.[11] Item level validity was carried out by item internal consistency, equality of item scale correlations, and item-discriminant validity. If an item correlates 0.4 or more with its hypothesized scale, after correction for scale overlap it can be considered as internally consistent. Equality of item–scale correlations is satisfied if item level correlations vary from 0.40 to 0.70 across items in the same scale. Item discriminant validity is achieved if the correlation between an item and its hypothesized scale is significantly higher than the correlation between that item and all other scales.[12] To assess the scale level reliability and validity we computed the reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha for each scale and computed the correlation matrix between scales. If the inter-scale correlation is less than their reliability coefficient is an indication that each scale is measuring a distinct health concept.[13] Scale level descriptive statistics and overall mean health score were computed.


  Results Top


[Table 1] shows the demographic characteristics of the people. Of the 112 patients undergoing dialysis, 74 (66.1%) were males. About 38.4% of the patients were in the age group 55–65 years. The mean age was 60.55 years with standard deviation of 11.77. Age ranged from 22 to 84. About 44.6% of patients had only high school education. Fifty percent of patients were getting some kind of insurance coverage. [Table 2] describes the item internal consistency, item-discriminant validity and success rate of the KDQOL-SF™ scale. Item internal consistency was more than 0.4 for all scales except burden of kidney disease, sleep, and cognitive function after corrected for item-scale overlap. Success rate of item discriminant validity was 100% in all scales except of kidney disease, cognitive function, and sleep. [Table 3] shows the mean, standard deviation (SD), floor and ceiling effects of the KDQOL-SF™ scales. The floor effect was found to be less than 15% except for social support, Role-physical and Role emotional. Ceiling effect was found to be above 15% for most of the scales. Highest mean score of 90.51 ± 18.78 was obtained for dialysis staff encouragement and lowest mean score of 26.87 ± 12.16 was for work status. The overall health score was 53.43 ± 11.48. [Table 4] shows the scale level reliability and inter scale correlations. Reliability coefficient can be considered as the correlation between a scale and itself. The overall reliability of the tool was 0.81. Scale level reliability varies from 0.71 to 0.92, which support item homogeneity and internal consistency across scales. Since the reliability coefficients of each scale were greater than the inter-scale correlations, each scale can be considered to measure a distinct concept.
Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the people

Click here to view
Table 2: KDQOL-SF™ item-internal consistency and item-discriminant validity

Click here to view
Table 3: KDQOL-SF™ scale descriptive statistics, floor and ceiling effects

Click here to view
Table 4: Reliability coefficients and inter-scale correlations

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Many western studies are there in the literature regarding the validation of KDQOL-SF™ tool.[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] Among Indian language, KDQOL-SF™had been translated into Hindi,[23] Kannada,[24] Marathi[25] and Tamil.[26] But KDQOL-SF™ has not been translated and validated in Malayalam. This first Malayalam translated version was found to have good internal consistency of 0.81. The reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0.71 to 0.92 in the 18 subscales. This is similar to the previous Indian studies, but the Marathi translated tool showed an internal consistency of more than 0.70 for all scales except the seven subscales. A study conducted in Bangalore using the English version of the tool also reported an internal consistency ranges from 0.61 to 0.94.[27] Results of the present study also agrees with the Western studies.[14],[15],[16],[22] A study conducted in Egypt reported the value of Cronbach's alpha more then 0.7 for all scales except three subscales.[17] Translated version in Urdu, the national language of Pakistan also reported an internal consistency of more than 0.70 for 12 sub scales.[28] Thai version of the KDQOL-36 questionnaire had reliability coefficient from 0.799-0.827.[29] Sinhala, which is the most common language spoken in Sri Lanka had Cronbach's alpha more than 0.70 for all sub scales except cognitive function.[30]

Floor effects is highest for work status scale and ceiling effects higher for dialysis staff encouragement which is concurrent with Kuriakose et al.[27] and Park et al.[15] This is not agreeing with Mateti et al.,[24] however that study didn't report all the domains in ESRD-targeted areas. Item internal consistency of more than 0.4 is attained in most of the scales and item discriminant validity success rate varied from 88% to 100%. This is reported as 0.5 to 1.0 in Joshi et al.[22] Overall health rating score was obtained as 53.22 ± 11.48. Scale wise mean score in ESRD-targeted areas are in congruence with the findings of other south Indian studies,[24],[25],[26] but not agreeing with the Role-Physical and Role-emotional mean scores of Mateti et al.[24] Among all the scales highest score was for Dialysis staff encouragement which is consistent with previous studies.[15],[22],[28],[30] Least score is obtained for Work status which is agreeing with previous studies.[15],[28]


  Conclusion Top


In summary, Malayalam version of KDQOL-SF™ is found to have good internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity. So, this tool is a sound tool to access the QOL of Malayalam speaking patients with CKD.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Group W. Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and current status. Int J Ment Health 1994;23:24-56.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Sharma R, Grover V. Kidney disease in India. Indian J Med 2009;50:30-3.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Singh AK, Farag YM, Mittal BV, Subramanian KK, Reddy SRK, Acharya VN, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of chronic kidney disease in India–results from the SEEK (Screening and Early Evaluation of Kidney Disease) study. BMC Nephrol 2013;14:114.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zhang QL, Rothenbacher D. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in population-based studies: Systematic review. BMC Public Health 2008;8:117.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Unruh ML, Weisbord SD, Kimmel PL. Psychosocial factors in patients with chronic kidney disease: Health-related quality of life in nephrology research and clinical practice. In: Seminars in Dialysis. Wiley Online Library; 2005. p. 82-90.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, Coons SJ, Carter WB. Development of the kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL TM) instrument. Qual Life Res 1994;3:329-38.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, Coons SJ, Amin N, Carter WB, et al. Kidney disease quality of life short form (KDQOL-SF), Version 1.3: A Manual for Use and Scoring. St Monica CA Rand; 1997. p.1-39.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Monica 1776 Main Street Santa, California 90401-3208. Basic Guide for Translating Surveys [Internet]. Available from: https://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/about_translations.html. [Last cited on 2018 Nov 21].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Wagner AK, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, et al. Cross-cultural comparisons of the content of SF-36 translations across 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:925-32.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Peat J, Mellis C, Williams K, Xuan W. Health Science Research: A Handbook of Quantitative Methods. First. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology). Vol. 3. McGraw-Hill New York; 1994.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Methods for testing data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability: The IQOLA Project approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:945-52.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959;56:81-105.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ricardo AC, Hacker E, Lora CM, Ackerson L, DeSalvo KB, Go A, et al. Validation of the kidney disease quality of life short form 36 (KDQOL-36™) US Spanish and English versions in a cohort of hispanics with chronic kidney disease. Ethn Dis 2013;23:202-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Park HJ, Kim S, Yong JS, Han SS, Yang DH, Meguro M, et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of kidney disease quality of life instrument (KDQOL-SFTM). Tohoku J Exp Med 2007;211:321-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Molsted S, Heaf J, Prescott L, Eidemak I. Reliability testing of the Danish version of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form™. Scand J UrolNephrol 2005;39:498-502.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
ElHafeez SA, Sallam SA, Gad ZM, Zoccali C, Torino C, Tripepi G, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of the “Kidney Disease and Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF™) version 1.3” questionnaire in Egypt. BMC Nephrol 2012;13:170.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Duarte PS, Ciconelli RM, Sesso R. Cultural adaptation and validation of the” Kidney Disease and Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF™ 1.3)” in Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res 2005;38:261-70.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Tao X, Chow SKY, Wong FKY. Determining the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (KDQOL-36™). BMC Nephrol 2014;15:115.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chow SKY, Tam BML. Is the kidney disease quality of life-36 (KDQOL-36) a valid instrument for Chinese dialysis patients? BMC Nephrol 2014;15:199.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Chen JY, Choi EP, Wan EY, Chan AK, Tsang JP, Chan KH, et al. Validation of the disease-specific components of the kidney disease quality of life-36 (KDQOL-36) in Chinese patients undergoing maintenance dialysis.PLoS One 2016;11:e0155188.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Joshi VD, Mooppil N, Lim JF. Validation of the kidney disease quality of life-short form: A cross-sectional study of a dialysis-targeted health measure in Singapore. BMC Nephrol 2010;11:36.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Patil PP, Pawar S, Thakurdesai P. Translation and validation of kidney disease and quality of life (KDQOL-SFTM 1.2) instrument to measure health related quality of life of Indian patients with kidney disease. Value Health 2014;17:A813.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Mateti UV, Nagappa AN, Attur RP, Nagaraju SP, Mayya SS, Balkrishnan R. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation and reliability of the South Indian (Kannada) version of the Kidney Disease and Quality of Life (KDQOL-36) instrument. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant 2015;26:1246-52.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Joshi V, Mulay A, Dighe T, Jeloka T, Biwalkar V. Validity of Marathi translated kidney disease quality of life short form (KDQOL-SF) TM. J Evid Based Med Heal2015;2:409-20.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Manavalan M, Majumdar A, Kumar KH, Priyamvada PS. Assessment of health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with chronic kidney disease. Indian J Nephrol 2017;27:37-43.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
27.
Kuriokose AV, KenchaappaV, Hiremath SKA, Varghese BM, Sproge S, Cevere R. Assessment of quality of life in chronic renal failure patients in India. Quality Issues and Insights in the 21st century 2012;1: 20-28.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Anees M, Ibrahim M, Imtiaz M, Batool S, Elahi I, Malik MR. Translation, validation and reliability of the kidney diseases quality of life-short form (KDQOL-SF Form) tool in Urdu. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2016;26:651-4.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Thaweethamcharoen T, Srimongkol W, Noparatayaporn P. Patient reported outcomes (pro) or QOL studies, Validity and reliability of KDQOL-36 in Thai kidney disease patient. Value Health Reg Issues2013;2:98-102.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Senanayake S, Gunawardena N, Palihawadana P, Kularatna S, Peiris TSG. Validity and reliability of the Sri Lankan version of the kidney disease quality of life questionnaire (KDQOL-SF™). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15:119.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

Indian Journal of Nephrology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 20th Sept '07