Background: In the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) strategy document, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale are recommended for the assessment of symptoms using the cutoff points of CCQ ≥1, CAT ≥10, and mMRC scale ≥2 to indicate symptomatic patients. The current study investigates the criterion validity of the CCQ, CAT and mMRC scale based on a reference cutoff point of St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) ≥25, as suggested by GOLD, following sensitivity and specificity analysis. In addition, areas under the curve (AUCs) of the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale were compared using two SGRQ cutoff points (≥25 and ≥20). Materials and methods: Two data sets were used: study A, 238 patients from a pulmonary rehabilitation program; and study B, 101 patients from primary care. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the correspondence between the recommended cutoff points of the questionnaires. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥25 were: study A, 0.99, 0.43, and 0.96 for CCQ ≥1, 0.92, 0.48, and 0.89 for CAT ≥10, and 0.68, 0.91, and 0.91 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.87, 0.77, and 0.9 for CCQ ≥1, 0.76, 0.73, and 0.82 for CAT ≥10, and 0.21, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥20 were: study A, 0.99, 0.73, and 0.99 for CCQ ≥1, 0.91, 0.73, and 0.94 for CAT ≥10, and 0.66, 0.95, and 0.94 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.8, 0.89, and 0.89 for CCQ ≥1, 0.69, 0.78, and 0.8 for CAT ≥10, and 0.18, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. Conclusion: Based on data from these two different samples, this study showed that the suggested cutoff point for the SGRQ (≥25) did not seem to correspond well with the established cutoff points of the CCQ or CAT scales, resulting in low specificity levels. The correspondence with the mMRC scale seemed satisfactory, though not optimal. The SGRQ threshold of ≥20 corresponded slightly better than SGRQ ≥25, recently suggested by GOLD 2015, with the established cutoff points for the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale.

Introduction Multidisciplinary, complex rehabilitation interventions are an important part of the treatment of chronic diseases. However, little is known about the effectiveness of routine rehabilitation interventions within the German healthcare system. Due to the nature of the social insurance system in Germany, randomised controlled trials examining the effects of rehabilitation interventions are challenging to implement and scarcely accessible. Consequently, alternative pre-post designs can be employed to assess pre-post effects of medical rehabilitation programmes. We present a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis methods to assess the pre-post effects of rehabilitation interventions in Germany. Methods and analysis The respective study will be conducted within the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A systematic literature review will be conducted to identify studies reporting the pre-post effects (start of intervention vs end of intervention or later) in German healthcare. Studies investigating the following disease groups will be included: orthopaedics, rheumatology, oncology, pulmonology, cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology and psychosomatics. The primary outcomes of interest are physical/mental quality of life, physical functioning and social participation for all disease groups as well as pain (orthopaedic and rheumatologic patients only), blood pressure (cardiac patients only), asthma control (patients with asthma only), dyspnoea (patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease only) and depression/anxiety (psychosomatic patients only). We will invite the principal investigators of the identified studies to provide additional individual patient data. We aim to perform the meta-analyses using individual patient data as well as aggregate data. We will examine the effects of both study-level and patient-level moderators by using a meta-regression method. Ethics and dissemination Only studies that have received institutional approval from an ethics committee and present anonymised individual patient data will be included in the meta-analysis. The results will be presented in a peer-reviewed publication and at research conferences. A declaration of no objection by the ethics committee of the University of Würzburg is available (number 20180411 01).

Questionnaire data from two projects on the development of quality assurance instruments for an inpatient rehabilitation/prevention program for parents were used for a secondary analysis. In this analysis, the associations of gains in a psychosocial resource (parenting self-efficacy) and two types of stressors experienced by mothers at the start of treatment (parenting hassles, depressive symptoms) with general life satisfaction and satisfaction with health at the end of treatment were explored. Structural equation modeling was applied to data from N = 1724 female patients. Potential resource-stressor interactions were tested using the Latent Moderated Structural Equations approach. Results showed that parenting hassles were negatively associated with general life satisfaction and satisfaction with health while self-efficacy gains were weakly positively correlated with both variables. No interaction of parenting hassles and self-efficacy gains was found. Depressive symptoms were negatively associated with both satisfaction measures. In these models, self-efficacy gains were not substantially correlated with life satisfaction, but showed a small association with satisfaction with health. There was no significant interaction of depressive symptoms and self-efficacy gains. The findings imply that interventions for distressed mothers—as exemplarily illustrated by this inpatient setting—should focus on identifying and reducing initial stressors as these may continue to impair mothers’ subjective health despite gains in parenting-related resources.

Background To examine whether lack of measurement invariance (MI) influences mean comparisons among different disease groups, this paper provides (1) a systematic review of MI in generic constructs across chronic conditions and (2) an empirical analysis of MI in the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ™). Methods (1) We searched for studies of MI among different chronic conditions in online databases. (2) Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were used to study MI among five chronic conditions (orthopedic condition, rheumatism, asthma, COPD, cancer) in the heiQ™ with N = 1404 rehabilitation inpatients. Impact on latent and composite mean differences was examined. Results (1) A total of 30 relevant studies suggested that about one in three items lacked MI. However, only four studies examined impact on latent mean differences. Scale means were only affected in one of these three studies. (2) Across the eight heiQ™ scales, seven scales had items with lack of MI in at least one disease group. However, in only two heiQ™ scales were some latent or composite mean differences affected. Conclusions Lack of MI among disease groups is common and may have a relevant influence on mean comparisons when using generic instruments. Therefore, when comparing disease groups, tests of MI should be implemented. More studies of MI and according impact on mean differences in generic questionnaires are needed.

Objective The admission interview in oncological inpatient rehabilitation might be a good opportunity to identify cancer patients' needs present after acute treatment. However, a relevant number of patients may not express their needs. In this study, we examined (a) the proportion of cancer patients with unexpressed needs, (b) topics of unexpressed needs and reasons for not expressing needs, (c) correlations of not expressing needs with several patient characteristics, and (d) predictors of not expressing needs. Methods We enrolled 449 patients with breast, prostate, and colon cancer at beginning and end of inpatient rehabilitation. We obtained self‐reports about unexpressed needs and health‐related variables (quality of life, depression, anxiety, adjustment disorder, and health literacy). We estimated frequencies and conducted correlation and ordinal logistic regression analyses. Results A quarter of patients stated they had “rather not” or “not at all” expressed all relevant needs. Patients mostly omitted fear of cancer recurrence. Most frequent reasons for not expressing needs were being focused on physical consequences of cancer, concerns emerging only later, and not knowing about the possibility of talking about distress. Not expressing needs was associated with several health‐related outcomes, for example, emotional functioning, adjustment disorder, fear of progression, and health literacy. Depression measured at the beginning of rehabilitation showed only small correlations and is therefore not sufficient to identify patients with unexpressed needs. Conclusions A relevant proportion of cancer patients reported unexpressed needs in the admission interview. This was associated with decreased mental health. Therefore, it seems necessary to support patients in expressing needs.