impact factor
logo
 

Diagnosis

 

Validity of the Workers Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP) in patients with systemic sclerosis


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

 

  1. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne at St. Vincent’s Hospital; and Department of Rheumatology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  2. Department of Rheumatology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  3. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  4. Monash University and Monash Health, Clayton, Australia.
  5. Monash University and Monash Health, Clayton, Australia.
  6. Department of Rheumatology, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, Hobart, Australia.
  7. Department of Rheumatology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
  8. Rheumatology Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace; and Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Australia.
  9. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne at St. Vincent’s Hospital; and Department of Rheumatology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. m.nikpour@unimelb.edu.au

the Australian Scleroderma Interest Group (ASIG)

CER10311
2017 Vol.35, N°4 ,Suppl.106
PI 0130, PF 0137
Diagnosis

purchase article

PMID: 28516877 [PubMed]

Received: 09/02/2017
Accepted : 24/04/2017
In Press: 08/05/2017
Published: 12/10/2017

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the construct validity of the Workers Productivity and Impairment Activity Index: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP) in Australian systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients.
METHODS:
SSc patients, identified through the Australian Scleroderma Cohort Study database, completed the WPAI:SHP and a quality of life instrument (PROMIS-29) cross-sectionally. The construct validity of the WPAI:SHP was assessed by the correlations between the WPAI:SHP and a range of SSc health states. Non-parametric correlation, including Spearman’s correlation (ρ), was used to test the validity of WPAI:SHP and ability to distinguish between different health states.
RESULTS:
A total of 476 completed questionnaires was returned, equating to a response rate of 63.7%. Among those under 65 years of age, 155 patients (55.2%) were in paid employment. Employed patients had a mean (± SD) age of 56.5 (9.8) years and were predominantly female (87.3%) with limited disease subtype (75.6%). The WPAI:SHP showed construct validity based on moderate to strong correlations with health status as assessed by a range of health outcome measures including disease activity (ρ=0.34-0.39, p=0.001), physical function (ρ=0.55-0.62, p=0.001), disease severity(ρ=0.55-0.62, p=0.001), fatigue (ρ= 0.62-0.63, p=0.001), pain (ρ=0.68-0.71, p=0.001), and breathlessness (ρ=0.39-0.46, p=0.001). Furthermore, according to the effect size, the WPAI:SHP scores have a large discriminative ability (d=1.26-1.47) for distinguishing SSc patients with different health outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS:
The WPAI is a valid questionnaire for assessing impairments in paid employment and social activities in SSc patients, and for measuring the relative differences between SSc patients with varying health states.

Rheumatology Article