Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| CHU UCL Namur | UNKNOWN |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this observational study is to cross-validate the Lymphedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Lower Limb Lymphedema (Lymph-ICF-LL) in French and to investigate the responsiveness of the original Dutch Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire in patients with lower limb lymphedema. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Participants are asked to complete questionnaires (Lymph-ICF-LL, Short Form-36, Global Perceived Effect Scale, questionnaire about the face and content validity) at two time points.
For reliability of the French Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire:
Native French speaking patients with stable lower limb lymphedema (LLL) (= in the maintenance phase of the treatment and no intensive multicomponent bandaging is required) are asked to complete the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire twice with an interval of 1-2 days in between.
For the test-retest reliability following outcomes are calculated: Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(2,1), standard error of measurement and the smallest real difference.
For internal consistency the Cronbach's alpha is calculated for the first completion of the questionnaire.
For the validity of the French Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire, the construct validity, face and content validity are determined.
2.1: For construct validity (=convergent and divergent validity), patients with stable lower limb lymphedema are asked to additionally complete the 36-item Short-Form Health survey (=health-related quality of life questionnaire) together with the first completion of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire. For convergent validity, hypotheses are formulated about significant correlations between domains of the 36-item Short-Form Health survey (=SF-36) and domains of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire which are expected to evaluate a similar construct: 'Physical functioning' of SF-36 and 'general tasks/household', 'mobility', 'life domains/social life' of the Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Role limitations due to physical health problems' of SF-36 and 'General tasks/household' of Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Bodily pain' of SF-36 and 'Physical function' of Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Social functioning' of SF-36 and 'Life domains/ social life' of Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Role limitations due to personal or emotional problems' of SF-36 and 'Mental function' of Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Mental health' of SF-36 and 'Mental function' of Lymph-ICF-LL. For divergent validity, hypotheses are formulated about weak or non-significant correlations between domains of the SF-36 and Lymph-ICF-LL: 'Physical functioning' of SF-36 and 'Mental function' of Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Role limitations due to personal or emotional problems' of SF-36 and 'Physical function' Lymph-ICF-LL; 'Mental health' of SF-36 and 'General tasks/household', 'Mobility', 'Life domains/social life' of Lymph-ICF-LL. These hypotheses were also used in previous published research of the validation of the original Dutch Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for this purpose.A correlation coefficient below .25 represent no to a little relationship, a value between .25 and .50 indicates a low to fair relationship, a value between .50 and .75 is interpreted as a moderate to good relationship and a value above or equal to .75 as a strong relationship.
2.2 For face and content validity, patients with stable LLL are asked to complete an additional questionnaire about clarity and completeness of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire: "Was each question of the Lymph-ICF-LL understandable? (yes/no)", "Was the scoring system clear? (yes/no)", "Were all complaints related to your lymphedema mentioned in the questionnaire? (yes/no)" and "Where there any questions of which you thought they were not relevant for lymphedema? (yes/no)". If patients answered 'no', they could clarify their answer in an open field.
For the responsiveness of the French and Dutch Lymph-ICF-LL, internal and external responsiveness is evaluated in patients with stable LLL and in patients who are treated in the intensive phase with multicomponent bandages. For internal responsiveness, patients with stable LLL have to complete the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire twice with an interval of 2 months. Patients treated in the intensive phase have to complete the questionnaire at the start of the intensive phase and 1 month after the end of the intensive phase. The Wilcoxon signed rank test is determined to evaluate if there is a significant difference between the total and subdomain scores of two completions in patients in the intensive phase and not in patients with LLL. For the external responsiveness, all patients are asked to complete the Global Perceived effect scale (GPE) together with the second completion of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire. In this GPE questionnaire patient are asked to rate their perceived change in lymphedema-specific quality of life in general and concerning the subdomains of the Lymph-ICF-LL on a 7-point Likert-scale: 1=completely recovered, 2=much better, 3= a little better, 4= unchanged, 5= a little worse, 6= much worse, 7= worse than ever. Patients who give score 1 and 2 are labeled as responders, with score 3-5 as non-responders and with scere 6-7 as negative responders. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was determined between the total and subdomain scores in the positive, negative and non responder groups. Additionally spearman rank correlations coefficients are calculated between the change in total and subdomain scores and the GPE-score. The minimal clinically important difference are calculated with the anchor-based method: descriptive statistics of the change in total and subdomain scores of the Lymph-ICF-LL are determined in patients who indicated on the GPE that the lymphedema-specific quality of life was much improved or much worsened.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native French speaking patients with stable lower limb lymphedema in the maintenance phase | Native French speaking patients with stable lower limb lymphedema in the maintenance phase were included for the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the French Lymph-ICF-LL |
| |
| Native French speaking patients with lower limb lymphedema which are treated in the intensive phase | Native French speaking patients with lower limb lymphedema who received treatment in the intensive phase were included for the responsiveness of the French Lymph-ICF-LL |
| |
| Native Dutch speaking patients with stable lower limb lymphedema in the maintenance phase | Native Dutch speaking patients with stable lower limb lymphedema in the maintenance phase were included for the responsiveness of the Dutch Lymph-ICF-LL |
| |
| Native Dutch speaking patients with lower limb lymphedema which are treated in the intensive phase | Native Dutch speaking patients with lower limb lymphedema who received treatment in the intensive phase were included for the responsiveness of the Dutch Lymph-ICF-LL |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance phase of Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy | Other | Patients with lower limb lymphedema in the maintenance phase of decongestive lymphatic therapy (with compression garments) were included |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of the French Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire (test-retest) | Following aspects were assessed to investigate the reliability of the French Lymph-ICF-LL: Test-retest relative reliability Patients completed the Lymph-ICF-LL two times with an interval of 1-2 days. The total score and subdomain scores are calculated: (sum of scores divided by the number of completed questions)*10. This results in a score between 0 and 100 in which 0 reflects a better lymphedema-specific quality of life and 100 a worse lymphedema-specific quality of life. The intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) (ICC) is calculated between the first and second completion. An ICC above .90 is interpreted as excellent relative reliability, an ICC between .75 and .90 as good, an ICC between .50 and .75 as moderate and an ICC below .50 as poor relative reliability. | Baseline and 1-2 days later |
| Reliability of the French Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire (standard error of measurement) | Standard error of measurement (SEM) reflects absolute reliability between the total and subdomain scores of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaires at baseline and 1-2 days later. The SEM is calculated with the square root of mean square error determined by ANOVA. | Baseline and 1-2 days later |
| Reliability of the French Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire (smallest real difference) | Smallest Real Difference (SRD) between the total and subdomain scores of the two Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire completions at baseline and 1-2 days later was calculated by 1.96 multiplied by SEM and square root of 2. | Baseline and 1-2 days later |
| Reliability of the French Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire | Internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha of the different domains and total score. A Cronbach's alpha between .70 and .90 is considered as a good internal consistency | Baseline (first completion of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Face and content/floor & ceiling effects of the French Lymph-ICF-LL | A self-developed questionnaire was completed by the patients with stable lower limb lymphedema with questions about the clarity of the scoring system and questions, the completeness and redundancy of the questions of the Lymph-ICF-LL. Frequency of the minimum and maximum score was reported to evaluate floor (frequency of score 0 on the total score and subdomain scores of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire) and ceiling (frequency of score 100 on the total score and subdomain scores of the Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaire) effects, respectively. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Patients with lower limb lymphedema are treated with decongestive lymphatic therapy and are either in the intensive phase or in the maintenance phase. Patients in both phases are included in this study.
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UZ Leuven and KU Leuven | Leuven | 3000 | Belgium | |||
| CHU UCL Namur site Godinne |
Data will be made available on reasonable request.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Intensive phase of Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy | Other | Patients with lower limb lymphedema who are treated in the intensive phase of Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy (with multilayer bandages) were included |
|
| Baseline |
| Construct validity of the Lymph-ICF-LL | Hypothesis about which domains of the lymph-ICF-LL would be highly correlated with certain domains of the short form health survey with 36 items (SF-36) were formulated to assess convergent validity. To evaluate discriminant validity hypothesis were formulated on which domains of the lymph-ICF-LL would have a weak correlation with certain domains of the SF-36. The SF-36 was completed together with the first completion of the Lymph-ICF-LL by patients with stable lower limb lymphedema. For both the SF-36 and Lymph-ICF-LL questionnaires scores varied between 0 and 100. However, for the SF-36 a scores closer to zero reflect a worse quality of life, while for the Lymph-ICF-LL scores closer to zero reflect a better lymphedema-specific quality life. | Baseline |
| Internal responsiveness of the Lymph-ICF-LL | Internal responsiveness evaluates the ability of the questionnaire to have different results over a particular timeframe. For this purpose two groups of patients were included: one group where a change in lymphedema-specific quality of life can be expected (patients receiving intensive treatment) and one group where no change in lymphedema-specific quality of life is expected (patients with stable lower limb lymphedema). The Lymph-ICF-LL had to be completed at two time points (see Time Frame). A score closer to zero reflects a better lymphedema-specific quality of life and a score closer 100 reflects a worse lymphedema-specific quality of life. | At start of the intensive phase and 1 month after the end of the intensive phase (patients receiving intensive treatment) or at baseline and 2 months later (patients with stable lower limb lymphedema) |
| External responsiveness | = extent to which the change on the Lymph-ICF-LL is related to the change on a reference measure of a person's health status over a certain time period. 2 groups of patients are included: 1 group in which a change in lymphedema-specific quality of life is expected (patients receiving intensive treatment) and 1 group in which no change in lymphedema-specific quality of life is expected (patient with stable lower limb lymphedema). The Lymph-ICF-LL is completed at 2 time points (see Time Frame). Additionally, the global perceived effect scale (GPE) was completed at the second time point in which patients have to evaluate on a 7-point Likert scale their current health status in comparison with an earlier defined timepoint. 1=completely recovered, 2=much better, 3=a little better, 4=unchanged, 5=a little worse, 6=much worse, 7=worse than ever. Patients were divided in groups. Scores 1,2= positive responder, scores 3,4,5= non-responder, scores 6,7= negative responder | Start of the intensive phase and 1 month after the end of the intensive phase (patients receiving intensive treatment) or baseline an 2 months later (patients with stable lower limb lymphedema in the stable phase) |
| Yvoir |
| 5332 |
| Belgium |
| Hôpital Cognacq-Jay | Paris | 75015 | France |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D008209 | Lymphedema |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D008206 | Lymphatic Diseases |
| D006425 | Hemic and Lymphatic Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided