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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2006

Open Access 01-12-2006 | Research

Measuring the impact and distress of health problems from the individual's perspective: development of the Perceived Impact of Problem Profile (PIPP)

Authors: Julie F Pallant, RoseAnne Misajon, Elizabeth Bennett, Lenore Manderson

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to develop and conduct preliminary validation of the Perceived Impact of Problem Profile (PIPP). Based on the biopsychosocial model of health and functioning, the PIPP was intended as a generic research and clinical measurement tool to assess the impact and distress of health conditions from the individuals' perspective. The ICF classification system was used to guide the structure of the PIPP with subscales included to assess impact on self-care, mobility, participation, relationships and psychological well-being. While the ICF focuses on the classification of objective health and health related status, the PIPP broadens this focus to address the individuals' subjective experience of their health condition.

Methods

An item pool of 23 items assessing both impact and distress on five key domains was generated. These were administered to 169 adults with mobility impairment. Rasch analysis using RUMM2020 was conducted to assess the psychometric properties of each set of items. Preliminary construct validation of the PIPP was performed using the EQ5D.

Results

For both the Impact and Distress scales of the PIPP, the five subscales (Self-care, Mobility, Participation, Relationships, and Psychological Well-being) showed adequate psychometric properties, demonstrating fit to the Rasch model. All subscales showed adequate person separation reliability and no evidence of differential item functioning for sex, age, educational level or rural vs urban residence. Preliminary validity testing using the EQ5D items provided support for the subscales.

Conclusion

This preliminary study, using a sample of adults with mobility impairment, provides support for the psychometric properties of the PIPP as a potential clinical and research measurement tool. The PIPP provides a brief, but comprehensive means to assess the key ICF components, focusing on the individuals' perspective of the impact and distress caused by their health condition. Further validation of its use across different health conditions and varying cultural settings is required.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
WHO: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva , World Health Organization; 2001.
2.
Hewlett S, Smith AP, Kirwan JR: Measuring the meaning of disability in rheumatoid arthritis: the Personal Impact Health Assessment Questionnaire (PI HAQ). Ann Rheum Dis 2002, 61: 986–993. 10.1136/ard.61.11.986PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
Patell KK, Veenstra DL, Patrick DL: A review of selected patient-generated outcome measures and their application in clinical trials. Value Health 2003, 5: 595–603. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65236.xCrossRef
4.
Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Russell IT: Patient centred assessment of quality of life for patients with four common conditions. Qual Health Care 1999, 8: 22–29.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
O'Boyle CA, McGee H, Hickey AM, O'Malley K, Joyce CRB: Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet 1992, 339: 1088–1091. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90673-QPubMedCrossRef
6.
Hickey AM, Bury G, O'Boyle CA, Bradley F, O'Kelly FD, Shannon W: A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. BMJ 1996, 313: 29–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
Juniper EP, Buist AS, Cox FM, Ferrie PJ, King DR: Validation of a standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Chest 1999, 115: 1265–1270. 10.1378/chest.115.5.1265PubMedCrossRef
8.
Trauer T, Mackinnon A: Why are we weighting? The role of importance ratings in quality of life measurement. Qual Life Res 2001, 10: 579–585. 10.1023/A:1013159414364PubMedCrossRef
9.
Ware JEJ, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B: SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston, Massachusetts , The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
10.
Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG: Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980, 23: 137–145.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Stoll T, Brach M, Huber EO, Scheuringer M, Schwarzkopf SR, Konstanjsek N, Stucki G: ICF Core Set for patients with musculoskeletal conditions in the acute hospital. Disabil Rehabil 2005,27(7/8):381–387.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Weigl M, Cieza A, Andersen C, Kollerits B, Amann E, Stucki G: Identification of relevant ICF categories in patients with chronic health conditions: a Delphi exercise. J Rehabil Med 2004,44 (Suppl):12–21. 10.1080/16501960410015443PubMedCrossRef
13.
Henderson RH, Sundaresan T: Cluster sampling to assess immunization coverage - A review of experience with a simplified sampling method. Bull World Health Organ 1982, 60: 253–260.PubMedCentralPubMed
14.
Bennett S, Radalowicz A, Vella V, Tomkins A: A computer simulation of household sampling schemes for health surveys in developing countries. Int J Epidemiol 1994, 23: 1282–1291.PubMedCrossRef
15.
EuroQol_Group: EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16: 199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9CrossRef
16.
Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G: Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models (RUMM2020 Version 4.0). Duncraig, Western Australia , Rumm Laboratory Pty Ltd.; 2003.
17.
Pallant JF, Tennant A: An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psych 2006., in press:
18.
Rasch G: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago , Univeristy of Chicago Press; 1960.
19.
Karabatos G: The Rasch model, additive conjoint measurement, and new models of probabilistic measurement theory. J of App Measur 2001, 2: 389–423.
20.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. Br Med J 1995, 310: 170.CrossRef
21.
Nunnally JO: Psychometric Theory. New York , McGraw Hill; 1978.
22.
Holland PW, Wainer H: Differential item functioning. Hilldale, NJ , Lawerence Erlbaum Associates; 1993.
23.
Ueda S, Okawa Y: The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: what is it and what is it for? Disabil Rehabil 2003,25(11–12):596–601. 10.1080/0963828031000137108PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Measuring the impact and distress of health problems from the individual's perspective: development of the Perceived Impact of Problem Profile (PIPP)
Authors
Julie F Pallant
RoseAnne Misajon
Elizabeth Bennett
Lenore Manderson
Publication date
01-12-2006
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2006
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-36

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2006 Go to the issue

Research

Assessment of health-related quality of life in arthritis: conceptualization and development of five item banks using item response theory

Research

Quality of life and hormone use: new validation results of MRS scale

Research

A brief symptom index for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Commentary

Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change

Research

Health-related quality of life in children with newly diagnosed cancer: a one year follow-up study

Research

Positive and negative affect and oral health-related quality of life