Validation of the Thai version of the Duke Activity Status Index in patients with a previous myocardial infarction

1. LaPier TK. Functional status during immediate recovery after hospitalization for coronary heart disease. J Cardiopulm Rehab. 2003; 23:203-7.10.1097/00008483-200305000-00008Search in Google Scholar

2. Jarrell LA, Hains, SJ, Kisilevsky BS, Brown CA. Gender differences in functional capacity following myocardial infarction: an exploratory study. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2005; 15:28-33.Search in Google Scholar

3. Dodson JA, Arnold SV, Reid KJ, Gill TM, Rich MW, Masoudi FA, et al. Physical function and independence 1 year after myocardial infarction: observations from the Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in recovery from acute Myocardial infarction: Patients’ Health status registry. Am Heart J. 2012; 163:790-6.10.1016/j.ahj.2012.02.024Search in Google Scholar

4. Balady GJ, Ades PA, Comoss P, Limacher M, Pina IL, Southard D, et al. Core components of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs. Circulation. 2000; 102:1069-73.10.1161/01.CIR.102.9.1069Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Hlatky MA, Boineau RE, Higginbotham MB, Lee KL, Mark DB, Califf RM, et al. A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capability (The Duke Activity Status Index). Am J Cardiol. 1989; 64:651-4.10.1016/0002-9149(89)90496-7Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6. Phillips L, Wang JW, Pfeffer B, Gianos E, Fisher D, Shaw LJ, et al. Clinical role of the Duke Activity Status Index in the selection of the optimal type of stress myocardial perfusion imaging study in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011; 18:1015-20.10.1007/s12350-011-9456-yOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

7. Brual J, Gravely S, Suskin N, Stewart DE, Grace SL. The role of clinical and geographic factors in the use of hospital versus home-based cardiac rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res. 2012; 35:220-6.10.1097/MRR.0b013e328353e375Search in Google Scholar

8. Mantziari L, Kamperidis V, Ventoulis I, Damvopoulou E, Giannakoulas G, Efthimiadis G, et al. Increased right atrial volume index predicts low Duke Activity Status Index in patients with chronic heart failure. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2013; 54: 32-38.Search in Google Scholar

9. Campeau L. Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976; 54:522-3.10.1161/circ.54.3.947585Search in Google Scholar

10. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey update. [online]. [cited 2013 January 19]. Available from: http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36.shtmlSearch in Google Scholar

11. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short- Form Health Survey 1: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30:473-83.10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

12. Sindhu S, Sriprasong S. A study of physical health conditions and level of activity during the recovering phase after discharge of acute myocardial infarction patients. The Thai Journal of Nursing Council. 2001; 16:52-68. [in Thai].Search in Google Scholar

13. Hofer S, Benzer W, Alber H, Ruttmann E, Kopp M, Schussler G, et al. Determinates of health-related quality of life in coronary artery disease patients: a prospective study generating a structural equation model. Psychosomatics. 2005; 46:212-23.10.1176/appi.psy.46.3.212Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

14. Kaul P, Naylor CD, Armstrong PW, Mark DB, Theroux P, Dagenais GR. Assessment of activity status and survival according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina classification. Can J Cardiol. 2009; 25: e225-31.10.1016/S0828-282X(09)70506-9Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

15. Goldman L, Hashimoto B, Cook EF, Loscalzo A. Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation. 1981; 64:1227-34.10.1161/01.CIR.64.6.12277296795Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, Calkins H, Chaikof EL, Fleischmann KE, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). Circulation. 2007; 116:e418-500.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.18569917901357Search in Google Scholar

17. 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; 8:94-104.10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x15804318Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18. Leurmarnkul W, Meetam P. Properties testing of the retranslated SF-36 (Thai version). Thai J Pharm Sci. 2005; 29:69-88.Search in Google Scholar

19. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995; 4: 293-307.10.1007/BF015938827550178Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

20. Nunnally JC, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Search in Google Scholar

21. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications; 2003.Search in Google Scholar

22. Alonso J, Permanyer-Miralda G, Cascant P, Brotons C, Prieto L, Soler-Soler J. Measuring functional status of chronic coronary patients. Reliability, validity and responsiveness to clinical change of the reduced version of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). Eur Heart J. 1 Search in Google Scholar