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

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 14; no. 4; p. e080096
• Main Authors: Duncan, Polly, Scott, Lauren J, Dawson, Shoba, Munas, Muzrif, Pyne, Yvette, Chaplin, Katherine, Gaunt, Daisy, Guenette, Line, Salisbury, Chris
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England British Medical Journal Publishing Group 10-04-2024; BMJ Publishing Group LTD; BMJ Publishing Group
• Subjects: Age; Aged; Asthma; Chronic Disease; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Comorbidity; General practice / Family practice; Humans; Literacy; Medical personnel; Multimorbidity; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient-Centered Care; Patients; Primary Care; Psychometrics; Qualitative research; Quality in health care; Questionnaires; Random Allocation; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires; Validation studies; Validity; United Kingdom > UK; United States > US; Surveys and Questionnaires; Primary Care; Chronic Disease; Patient-Centered Care; Quality in health care; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080096

ObjectivesTo undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects.DesignSurvey.SettingUK primary care.ParticipantsAdults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post.MeasuresBaseline 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 (Rs) 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).Results244 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 (Rs 0.77, p<0.001), weakly correlated with number of consultations (Rs 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (Rs 0.23, p<0.001), but not correlated with number of long-term conditions (Rs −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.ConclusionThis 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.