SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire in Swedish tested in patients with parkinsonism.

Brain Behav · 2020-07-07

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1746PMID: 32633094

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundOrthostatic hypotension (OH) is common among older people and in particular in conditions like Parkinson's disease (PD). The OH Questionnaire (OHQ) has been proposed as a useful patient-reported assessment tool consisting of the OH Symptom Assessment (OHSA), OH Daily Activity Scale (OHDAS), and a composite score.Aims of the studyTo translate the OHQ into Swedish and assess its psychometric properties.MethodsFollowing forward-backward translation, the Swedish OHQ was field-tested (n = 6) for relevance, comprehensibility, and respondent burden. It was then tested regarding scaling assumptions, targeting, reliability, and construct validity in persons with PD (n = 27) and multiple system atrophy (n = 2).ResultsThe Swedish OHQ was considered relevant and easy to use, with a mean completion time of 5.3 min. Scaling assumptions were acceptable for OHSA and OHDAS (corrected item-total correlations, .30-.67) but not for the total score (.12-.69). Floor/ceiling effects were ≤3.4% and reliability was >.64. Construct validity was supported by expected correlations with the SCOPA-AUT, RAND-36, and blood pressure measurements.ConclusionsThe Swedish OHQ was well received, and psychometric results suggest that the OHQ (particularly the OHDAS) is a useful tool for OH assessment in parkinsonian disorders. Further testing in larger samples is needed.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.