Further development and validation of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ)

Polly Duncan; Lauren J Scott; Shoba Dawson; Muzrif Munas; Yvette Pyne; Katherine Chaplin; Daisy Gaunt; Line Guenette; Chris Salisbury

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080096

Further development and validation of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ)

BMJ Open. 2024 Apr 10;14(4):e080096. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080096.

Authors

Polly Duncan¹, Lauren J Scott^{2

3}, Shoba Dawson⁴, Muzrif Munas⁴, Yvette Pyne⁴, Katherine Chaplin⁴, Daisy Gaunt³, Line Guenette⁵, Chris Salisbury⁴

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK [email protected].
² National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
³ Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
⁴ Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
⁵ Faculty of Pharmacy and CHU de Québec Research Center, Université Laval, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract

Objectives: To undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects.

Design: Survey.

Setting: UK primary care.

Participants: Adults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post.

Measures: Baseline survey: sociodemographics, MTBQ (original or version with scale reversed), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), four questions (from QQ-10) on ease of completing the questionnaires. Follow-up survey (1-4 weeks after baseline): MTBQ, TBQ and QQ-10. Anonymous data collected from electronic GP records: consultations (preceding 12 months) and long-term conditions. The proportion of missing data and distribution of responses were examined for the original and reversed versions of the MTBQ and the TBQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman's rank correlation (R_s) assessed test-retest reliability and construct validity, respectively. Ease of completing the MTBQ and TBQ was compared. Interpretability was assessed by grouping global MTBQ scores into 0 and tertiles (>0).

Results: 244 adults completed the baseline survey (consent rate 31%, mean age 70 years) and 225 completed the follow-up survey. Reversing the scale did not reduce floor effects or data skewness. The global MTBQ scores had good test-retest reliability (ICC for agreement at baseline and follow-up 0.765, 95% CI 0.702 to 0.816). Global MTBQ score was correlated with global TBQ score (R_s 0.77, p<0.001), weakly correlated with number of consultations (R_s 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (R_s 0.23, p<0.001), but not correlated with number of long-term conditions (R_s -0.063, p=0.330). Most participants agreed that both the MTBQ and TBQ were easy to complete and included aspects they were concerned about.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates test-retest reliability and ease of completion of the MTBQ and builds on a previous study demonstrating good content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire.

Keywords: Chronic Disease; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient-Centered Care; Primary Care; Quality in health care; Surveys and Questionnaires.

Publication types

Validation Study

MeSH terms

Aged
Humans
Multimorbidity*
Psychometrics
Random Allocation
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires