Evidence Hub

Validity and reliability of the thirst distress scale and the short version of the xerostomia inventory for use in German patients with chronic heart failure: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Franziska Wefer, Lars Krüger, N. Kolbe, Melanie Seel, Maria Lutao, Franziska Ottenbreit, Samee Anton, Elena Wuzel-Samimi et al.

Heart & lung : the journal of critical care, 2024

371 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Thirst and xerostomia are prevalent and distressing symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Evaluation of interventions to alleviate these symptoms requires valid and reliable instruments. Such instruments are currently lacking for German patients with CHF.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the structural and convergent validity, and internal consistency reliability of the German versions of the Thirst Distress Scale for Patients with Heart Failure (G-TDS-HF) and the short form of the Xerostomia Inventory (G-SXI).

METHODS

A cross-sectional, multicenter study was conducted involving patients with CHF. Participants completed a questionnaire containing the G-TDS-HF, G-SXI, and a visual analog scale (VAS) to indicate intensity of thirst and xerostomia. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess structural validity. To assess internal consistency reliability, McDonald's Omega total was calculated, and Pearson´s r was used to examine convergent validity.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients (62.4 (± 14.9) years, 28.3 % female) participated in the study. Factor analysis of the G-TDS-HF revealed a two-factor structure. One factor represents symptom occurrence, and the second factor is symptom distress. Internal consistency reliability was deemed adequate, with McDonald's Omega total coefficients of 0.81. The correlation between the sum scores of the G-TDS-HF and thirst intensity (VAS) was r = 0.44 (p < 0.001). The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 371 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free