Ann Rehabil Med.  2023 Oct;47(5):367-376. 10.5535/arm.23044.

Korean Version of the Longer-Term Unmet Needs After Stroke Questionnaire

• Baek S
• Kim WS
• Park YH
• Jung YS
• Chang WK
• Kim G
• Paik NJ

• KMID: 2548396
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.23044

Abstract

Objective
To translate the 22-item Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke (LUNS) questionnaire, validate it in the Korean stroke population, and assess the reliability of face-to-face and telephone surveys.
Methods
Sixty-six adult patients with stroke from Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Kangwon National University Hospital were involved in the validation. Participants were interviewed twice using the LUNS Korean version: first, a face-to-face survey for validation, and second, a telephone survey for test-retest reliability. Participants completed the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) and Short Form 12 (SF-12) Mental and Physical Component Summary (MCS and PCS) scores at the first interview. For concurrent validity, the differences in health status (FAI, SF-12 MCS and PCS) between the groups that reported unmet needs and those that did not were analyzed for each item. Cohen’s kappa and percentage of agreement between the first and second administrations were calculated for each item to determine the test-retest reliability.
Results
The average age of the participants was 61.2±12.8 years and 74.2% were male. Fifty-seven patients were involved in the second interview. Depending on the unmet needs, SF-12 MCS, PCS, and FAI were significantly different in 12 of 22 items. In the test-retest reliability test, 12 items had a kappa of 0.6 or higher, and two had a kappa of <0.4.
Conclusion
The LUNS instrument into Korean (LUNS-K) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing unmet health needs in patients with stroke. In addition, telephone surveys can be considered reliable.

Keyword

Stroke; Needs assessment; Factor analysis; Translations; Validation studies

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. The percentage of stroke survivors reporting unmet needs for each item of the Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke instrument into Korean during face-to-face (T1, n=66) and telephonic (T2, n=57) interviews.

Reference

1. GBD 2016 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019; 18:439–58.

2. Kim JY, Kang K, Kang J, Koo J, Kim DH, Kim BJ, et al. Executive summary of stroke statistics in Korea 2018: a report from the Epidemiology Research Council of the Korean Stroke Society. J Stroke. 2019; 21:42–59.

3. Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016;47:e98-169. Erratum in: Stroke 2017;48:e78. Erratum in: Stroke. 2017; 48:e369.

4. Kim DY, Kim YH, Lee J, Chang WH, Kim MW, Pyun SB, et al. Clinical practice guideline for stroke rehabilitation in Korea 2016. Brain Neurorehabil. 2017; 10(Suppl 1):e11.

5. Murray J, Ashworth R, Forster A, Young J. Developing a primary care-based stroke service: a review of the qualitative literature. Br J Gen Pract. 2003; 53:137–42.

6. Chang WH, Sohn MK, Lee J, Kim DY, Lee SG, Shin YI, et al. Predictors of functional level and quality of life at 6 months after a first-ever stroke: the KOSCO study. J Neurol. 2016; 263:1166–77.

7. Im HW, Kim WS, Kim S, Paik NJ. Prevalence of worsening problems using post-stroke checklist and associations with quality of life in patients with stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020; 29:105406.

8. Chen T, Zhang B, Deng Y, Fan JC, Zhang L, Song F. Long-term unmet needs after stroke: systematic review of evidence from survey studies. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:e028137.

9. Andrew NE, Kilkenny MF, Lannin NA, Cadilhac DA. Is health-related quality of life between 90 and 180 days following stroke associated with long-term unmet needs? Qual Life Res. 2016; 25:2053–62.

10. Andrew NE, Kilkenny MF, Naylor R, Purvis T, Cadilhac DA. The relationship between caregiver impacts and the unmet needs of survivors of stroke. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015; 9:1065–73.

11. Kim KT, Chang WK, Jung YS, Jee S, Sohn MK, Ko SH, et al. Unmet needs for rehabilitative management in common health-related problems negatively impact the quality of life of community-dwelling stroke survivors. Front Neurol. 2021; 12:758536.

12. LoTS care LUNS study team. Validation of the longer-term unmet needs after stroke (LUNS) monitoring tool: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2013; 27:1020–8.

13. Murray J, Young J, Forster A, Ashworth R. Developing a primary care-based stroke model: the prevalence of longer-term problems experienced by patients and carers. Br J Gen Pract. 2003; 53:803–7.

14. Groeneveld IF, Arwert HJ, Goossens PH, Vliet Vlieland TPM. The Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and concurrent validity in a Dutch population. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018; 27:267–75.

15. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005; 8:94–104.

16. Timmerman H, Wolff AP, Schreyer T, Outermans J, Evers AW, Freynhagen R, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation to the Dutch language of the PainDETECT-Questionnaire. Pain Pract. 2013; 13:206–14.

17. Ballester BR, Maier M, Duff A, Cameirão M, Bermúdez S, Duarte E, et al. A critical time window for recovery extends beyond one-year post-stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2019; 122:350–7.

18. Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, Baird T, Schulz UG, Muir KW, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2002; 33:2243–6.

19. Han CW, Lee EJ, Kohzuki M. Validity and reliability of the Frenchay Activities Index for community-dwelling elderly in South Korea. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2009; 217:163–8.

20. Kim SH, Jo MW, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J. Assessment of psychometric properties of the Korean SF-12 v2 in the general population. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14:1086.

21. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol. 1960; 20:37–46.

22. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005; 85:257–68.

23. Shin DW, Choi JE, Miyashita M, Choi JY, Kang J, Baik YJ, et al. Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15-Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011; 41:478–84.

24. Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, Lai SM, Studenski S, Perera S, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005; 43:507–15.

25. Sibbald B, Addington-Hall J, Brenneman D, Freeling P. Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract. 1994; 44:297–300.

26. Analysis of sexual behaviour in France (ACSF). A comparison between two modes of investigation: telephone survey and face-to-face survey. ASCF principal investigators and their associates. AIDS. 1992; 6:315–23.

27. Czaja R. Asking sensitive behavioral questions in telephone interviews. Int Q Community Health Educ. 1987; 8:23–32.