Publication:

Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile: an instrument for clinical and laboratory research

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2015

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

European Respiratory Society
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Banzett, Robert B., Carl R. O'Donnell, Tegan E. Guilfoyle, Mark B. Parshall, Richard M. Schwartzstein, Paula M. Meek, Richard H. Gracely, and Robert W. Lansing. 2015. “Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile: an instrument for clinical and laboratory research.” The European Respiratory Journal 45 (6): 1681-1691. doi:10.1183/09031936.00038914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00038914.

Abstract

There is growing awareness that dyspnoea, like pain, is a multidimensional experience, but measurement instruments have not kept pace. The Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP) assesses overall breathing discomfort, sensory qualities, and emotional responses in laboratory and clinical settings. Here we provide the MDP, review published evidence regarding its measurement properties and discuss its use and interpretation. The MDP assesses dyspnoea during a specific time or a particular activity (focus period) and is designed to examine individual items that are theoretically aligned with separate mechanisms. In contrast, other multidimensional dyspnoea scales assess recalled recent dyspnoea over a period of days using aggregate scores. Previous psychophysical and psychometric studies using the MDP show that: 1) subjects exposed to different laboratory stimuli could discriminate between air hunger and work/effort sensation, and found air hunger more unpleasant; 2) the MDP immediate unpleasantness scale (A1) was convergent with common dyspnoea scales; 3) in emergency department patients, two domains were distinguished (immediate perception, emotional response); 4) test–retest reliability over hours was high; 5) the instrument responded to opioid treatment of experimental dyspnoea and to clinical improvement; 6) convergent validity with common instruments was good; and 7) items responded differently from one another as predicted for multiple dimensions.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories