Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 6/2014

Open Access 01-06-2014 | Original Article

Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire-Physical Function (OPAQ-PF): a psychometrically validated osteoporosis-targeted patient reported outcome measure of daily activities of physical function

Authors: A. Nixon, C. Kerr, H. Doll, A. N. Naegeli, S. L. Shingler, K. Breheny, R. Burge, D. T. Gold, S. Silverman

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire-Physical Functioning (OPAQ-PF). Based on this study, the OPAQ-PF has confirmed unidimensionality and acceptable reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity to change in a recent fracture/no recent fracture osteoporosis sample.

Methods

Dimensionality was established through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Patients completed three patient reported outcome (PRO) measures and four performance-based measures (PBMs) at baseline to enable an evaluation of construct validity. Patients without a recent fracture completed the OPAQ-PF 2 weeks after baseline to enable an evaluation of test–retest reliability. Ability to detect change and interpretation of change were investigated following completion of the OPAQ-PF 12 and 24 weeks postbaseline by patients with a recent fracture.

Results

A prospective psychometric validation study in 144 postmenopausal women, with moderate to severe osteoporosis, 37 of whom had experienced a recent fragility fracture (<6 weeks). Unidimensionality was established for the OPAQ-PF by factor analysis. The OPAQ-PF had good internal consistency (α = 0.974) and test–retest reliability (mean intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.993. The OPAQ-PF differentiated between patients with/without recent fracture, and by severity of osteoarthritis; it correlated strongly with hypothesized-related scales and PBMs (r > 0.3, p < 0.001). Ability to detect change was established with high correlations between changes in OPAQ-PF score and changes in global concept scores in recent fracture patients (r ≥ 0.6, 24-week change). Effect size of change on OPAQ-PF score increased by level of global change (p < 0.001). Anchor-based methods identified an OPAQ-PF change of 10 at an individual patient level and 20 at a group level as meaningful to patients.

Conclusions

The OPAQ-PF has confirmed unidimensionality and acceptable reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity to change in a recent fracture/no recent fracture osteoporosis sample.
Literature
1.
Johnell O (1996) Advances in osteoporosis: better identification of risk factors can reduce morbidity and mortality. J Intern Med 239:299–304PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Gold DT, Solimeo S (2006) Osteoporosis and depression: a historical perspective. Curr Osteoporos Rep 4:134–139PubMedCrossRef
4.
Wylie CD (2010) Setting a standard for a “silent” disease: defining osteoporosis in the 1980s and 1990s. Stud Hist Phil Biomed Sci 41:376–385CrossRef
5.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2009) Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims
6.
Tanaka K, Fujii A, Kuwabara A (2012) SF-36 and EQ-5D in the evaluation of QOL in the osteoporotic patients as the generic questionnaires. Clin Calcium 22:259–262PubMed
7.
Dallanezi G, Nahas EA, Freire BF, Nahas-Neto J, Corrente JE, Mazeto GM (2011) Quality of life of women with low bone mass in postmenopause. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 33:133–138PubMedCrossRef
8.
Wildner M, Sangha O, Clark DE, Clark DE, Doring A, Manstetten A (2002) Independent living after fractures in the elderly. Osteoporos Int 13:579–585PubMedCrossRef
9.
Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L, Lofman O, Wahlstrom O, Toss G (2004) Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:834–841PubMedCrossRef
10.
Voight K, Tache S, Hofer M (2012) Health related quality of life in male patients with osteoperosis:results of a cross sectional study. Aging Male 15:220–226CrossRef
11.
Roux C, Wyman A, Hooven FH, Gehlbach SH, Adachi JD, Chapurlat RD, Compston JE, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Greenspan SL, Lacroix AZ, Netelenbos JC, Pfeilschifter J, Rossini M, Saag KG, Sambrook PN, Silverman S, Siris ES, Watts NB, Boonen S (2012) Burden of non-hip, non-vertebral fractures on quality of life in postmenopausal women: the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women (GLOW). Osteoporos Int 23:2863–2871PubMedCrossRef
12.
Yoh K, Hamaya E, Urushihara H, Iikuni N, Yamamoto T, Taketsuna M, Miyauchi A, Sowa H, Tanaka K (2012) Quality of life in raloxifene-treated Japanese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a prospective, postmarketing observational study. Curr Med Res Opin 28:1757–1766PubMedCrossRef
13.
Silverman S (2000) The osteoperosis assessment questionnaire (OPAQ): A reliable and valid disease-targetes measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in osteoperosis. Qual Life Res 9:767–774CrossRef
14.
Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Adachi JD, Clifton J, Griffith LE, Epstein RS, Juniper EF (1993) Quality of life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 36:750–756PubMedCrossRef
15.
Osteoperosis quality of life study group (1997) Measuring quality of life in women with osteoperosis. Osteoporos Int 7:478–487CrossRef
16.
Helmes E, Hodsman A, Lazowski D, Bhardwaj A, Crilly R, Nichol P, Drost D, Vanderburgh L, Pederson L (1995) A questionnaire to evaluate disability in osteoporotic patients with vertebral compression fractures. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 50:M91–M98PubMedCrossRef
17.
Lips P, Cooper C, Agnusdei D, Caulin F, Egger P, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Liberman U, Minne H, Reeve J, Reginster JY, de Vernejoul MC, Wiklund I (1997) Quality of life as outcome in the treatment of osteoporosis: the development of a questionnaire for quality of life by the European Foundation for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7:36–38PubMedCrossRef
18.
Lips P, Cooper C, Agnusdei D, Caulin F, Egger P, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Kellingray S, Leplege A, Liberman UA, McCloskey E, Minne H, Reeve J, Reginster JY, Scholz M, Todd C, de Vernejoul MC, Wiklund I (1999) Quality of life in patients with vertebral fractures: validation of the quality of life questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO). Working party for quality of life of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 10:150–160PubMedCrossRef
19.
Marquis P, Cialdella P, De la Loge C (2001) Development and validation of a specific quality of life module in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis: the QUALIOST. Qual Life Res 10:555–566PubMedCrossRef
20.
Naegeli A, Nixon A, Burge R, Gold DT, Silverman S (2014) Development of the osteoporosis assessment questionnaire-physical function (OPAQ-PF): an osteoporosis-specific, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure of physical function. Osteoporos Int 25:579–588, Epub 2013 Aug 9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments:Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205CrossRef
23.
Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide on their development and use, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
24.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840PubMed
25.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRef
26.
International Osteoperosis Foundation (2012) Quality of life questionnaires QUALEFFO-41
27.
Lips P, Leplege A (2000) Development and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for patients with vertebral fractures: QUALEFFO-41. Qual Life Res 9:763–766CrossRef
28.
Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, Acaster S (2013) Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 22:475–483PubMedCrossRef
29.
Studenski S, Duncan PW, Chandler J, Samsa G, Prescott B, Hogue C, Bearon LB (1994) Predicting falls: the role of mobility and nonphysical factors. J Am Geriatr Soc 42:297–302PubMed
30.
Kline RB (2010) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Pulications, New York
31.
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 17:297–334CrossRef
32.
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–592PubMed
33.
Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C (2007) Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthr Cart 15:918–931CrossRef
34.
Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, Carr A (2008) Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford elbow score following surgery. Qual Life Res 17:1257–1267PubMedCrossRef
35.
Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Science/Languages, London
36.
Kline P (1993) The handbook of psychological testing, 1st edn. Routledge, London
Metadata
Title
Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire-Physical Function (OPAQ-PF): a psychometrically validated osteoporosis-targeted patient reported outcome measure of daily activities of physical function
Authors
A. Nixon
C. Kerr
H. Doll
A. N. Naegeli
S. L. Shingler
K. Breheny
R. Burge
D. T. Gold
S. Silverman
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2695-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

Osteoporosis International 6/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Effects of PTH(1–84) therapy on muscle function and quality of life in hypoparathyroidism: results from a randomized controlled trial

Original Article

Effects of sequential osteoporosis treatments on trabecular bone in adult rats with low bone mass

Review

How long should we treat?

Letter

Comment on Cassell and Clapperton: A decreasing trend in fall-related hip fracture incidence in Victoria, Australia

Original Article

TBS result is not affected by lumbar spine osteoarthritis

Original Article

Effects of 18-month low-magnitude high-frequency vibration on fall rate and fracture risks in 710 community elderly—a cluster-randomized controlled trial