National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report
Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care
Data
- Data Infographics
- Data Visualizations
- Data Tools
- Data Innovations
- All-Payer Claims Database
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
- Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
- AHRQ Quality Indicator Tools for Data Analytics
- State Snapshots
- United States Health Information Knowledgebase (USHIK)
- Data Sources Available from AHRQ
Search All Research Studies
AHRQ Research Studies
Sign up: AHRQ Research Studies Email updates
Research Studies is a compilation of published research articles funded by AHRQ or authored by AHRQ researchers.
Results
1 to 2 of 2 Research Studies DisplayedAhmad FS, Kallen MA, Schifferdecker KE
Development and initial validation of the PROMIS(R)-Plus-HF profile measure.
This paper describes the efforts to develop and validate the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System®-Plus-Heart Failure) profile measure. The authors conducted 8 focus groups with 61 patients with HF and phone interviews with 10 HF clinicians. They tested the measure with a 600-patient sample. Validity was analyzed and confirmed using Pearson r and Spearman rho correlations with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire subscores. The measure consists of 86 items across 18 domains.
AHRQ-funded; HS026385.
Citation: Ahmad FS, Kallen MA, Schifferdecker KE .
Development and initial validation of the PROMIS(R)-Plus-HF profile measure.
Circ Heart Fail 2019 Jun;12(6):e005751. doi: 10.1161/circheartfailure.118.005751.
.
.
Keywords: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Heart Disease and Health, Cardiovascular Conditions, Shared Decision Making, Quality of Life, Health Status
Uy V, Hays RD, Xu JJ
Do the unlabeled response categories of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring?
Half of the 21-item Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) response categories are labeled (0 = No, 1 = Very little, 5 = Very much) and half are not (2, 3, and 4). In this study, the investigators hypothesized that the unlabeled response options would not be more likely to be chosen at some place along the scale continuum than other response options and, therefore, not satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring.
AHRQ-funded; HS019311.
Citation: Uy V, Hays RD, Xu JJ .
Do the unlabeled response categories of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring?
Qual Life Res 2020 May;29(5):1349-60. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02422-8..
Keywords: Heart Disease and Health, Cardiovascular Conditions, Chronic Conditions, Quality of Life