Content validity of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a qualitative interview study

Author:

Martin Nguyen Allison1ORCID,La Rosa Carmen1,Cornell Alexandra G.1,Sher Mandel R.2,Bernstein Jonathan A.34,Birring Surinder S.5,(DeMuro) Romano Carla6,Mayorga Margaret6,Milien Mirline6,Ervin Claire7ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

2. Center for Cough, Largo, FL, USA

3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

4. Bernstein Clinical Research Center, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, USA

5. Centre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK

6. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

7. RTI Health Solutions, 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, USA

Abstract

Background: Chronic cough, a cough lasting >8 weeks, includes refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are needed to better understand chronic cough impacts that matter most to patients. The 19-item Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), an existing PRO measure of chronic cough, assesses impacts of cough across physical, psychological, and social domains. However, the content validity of the LCQ evaluating these concepts in patients with RCC/UCC had not been established. Objectives: To evaluate the content validity of the LCQ in patients with RCC/UCC. Design: A cross-sectional, qualitative interview study. Methods: First, previously completed qualitative interview results in adults with RCC/UCC ( N = 30) were evaluated and mapped to LCQ concepts. Next, a clinical cough expert reviewed each LCQ item and assessed the salience of its concepts for patients with RCC/UCC. Finally, semistructured interviews—including both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing—were conducted in adults with RCC/UCC ( N = 20) to elicit a comprehensive set of participant experiences and to assess the appropriateness of using the LCQ in this population. Results: Concepts reported in the past and present qualitative interviews were included across all LCQ items, and most impacts reported to be the “most bothersome” were assessed in the LCQ. In the current study, all participants indicated that reduced cough frequency would be an important treatment target. During cognitive debriefing, each LCQ item was endorsed by ⩾70% of participants. Additionally, participants were generally able to understand, recall, and select a response for each LCQ item. All participants and the clinical expert indicated that the LCQ was appropriate and assessed the impacts most relevant to patients with RCC/UCC. Conclusion: Our findings support the content validity of the LCQ and demonstrate that this measure is fit-for-purpose and includes important cough impacts in adults with RCC/UCC.

Funder

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3