Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Chest. 2012 Jun;141(6):1546-1553. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-1087. Epub 2012 Jan 19.

Reliability and validity of the multidimensional dyspnea profile.

Author information

1
College of Nursing, University of Colorado - Denver, Aurora, CO. Electronic address: Paula.meek@ucdenver.edu.
2
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Boston, MA; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
3
College of Nursing, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
4
Center for Neurosensory Disorders, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
5
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Boston, MA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Most measures of dyspnea assess a single aspect (intensity or distress) of the symptom. We developed the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP) to measure qualities and intensities of the sensory dimension and components of the affective dimension. The MDP is not indexed to a particular activity and can be applied at rest, during exertion, or during clinical care. We report on the development and testing of the MDP in patients with a variety of acute and chronic cardiopulmonary conditions.

METHODS:

One hundred fifty-one adults admitted to the ED with breathing symptoms completed the MDP three times in the ED, twice at least 1 h apart (T1, T2), and near discharge from the ED (T3). Measures were repeated in 68 patients twice in a follow-up session 4 to 6 weeks later (T4-T5). The ED sample was 56% men with a mean age of 53 ± 15 years; the follow-up sample was similar.

RESULTS:

Factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution with a total explained variance of 63%, 74%, and 72% at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. One domain related to primary sensory qualities and immediate unpleasantness, and the second encompassed emotional response. For the two domains, Cronbach α ranged from 0.82 to 0.95, and the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.91 to 0.98. Repeated-measures analysis was significant for change (T1, T3, T4), showing responsiveness to change in MDP domains with treatment (F([2,66]) = 19.67, P > .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

These analyses support the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change of the MDP with two domains in an acute care and follow-up setting.

PMID:
22267681
PMCID:
PMC3367480
DOI:
10.1378/chest.11-1087
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center