CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE:
Many clinical investigations use generic and/or specific questionnaires to obtain information about participants and patients. There is disagreement about whether the administration method can affect the results. The aim here was to determine whether, among patients with intermittent claudication (IC), there are differences in the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores with regard to: 1) the questionnaire administration method (self-administration versus face-to-face interview); and 2) the type of interviewer (vascular surgeon, VS, versus general practitioner, GP).
DESIGN AND SETTING:
Cross-sectional observational multicenter epidemiological study carried out within the Spanish National Health Service.
METHODS:
1,641 evaluable patients with IC firstly completed the WIQ and EQ-5D questionnaires and then were interviewed by their doctor on the same day. Pearson correlations and Chi-square tests were used.
RESULTS:
There was a strong correlation (r > 0.800; P < 0.001) between the two methods of administering the WIQ and EQ-5D questionnaires, and between the VS and GP groups. Likewise, there was a high level of concordance (P > 0.05) between the different dimensions of the WIQ-distance and EQ-5D (self-administration versus face-to-face) in the VS and GP groups.
CONCLUSION:
There was no difference between the different methods of administering the WIQ and EQ-5D questionnaires, among the patients with IC. Similarly, the two types of interviewers (VS or GP) were equally valid. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to expend effort to administer these questionnaires by interview, in studies on IC.
Intermittent claudication; Quality of life; Questionnaires; Validation studies; Peripheral arterial disease
