Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To develop a generic instrument for measuring short-term health status in the recovery period among patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic surgery.
Instrument content was based on qualitative data ascertained from focus groups of patients and input from an expert panel of clinicians and psychometricians. A draft questionnaire was then piloted and revised, leading to the 27-item Convalescence and Recovery Evaluation (CARE). CARE consists of four individually scored domains, which were identified using factor analysis. Test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity were assessed.
Test–retest reliability was high, ranging from 0.78 for the activity domain to >0.88 for all others. Internal consistency varied over time postoperatively but was moderate to high for all domains throughout. Correlations between the four domains of CARE were low (each r ≤ 0.57). Moderate agreement was evident between CARE domains and the appropriate components of validated instruments, providing convergent validity.
CARE is a robust, multi-dimensional measure of convalescence after abdominal and pelvic surgery. CARE can be used to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of recovery and to measure the impact of new processes of care (e.g., surgical technology adoption) on short-term patient outcomes.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Strasberg, S. M., Hertl, M., & Soper, N. J. (1995). An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 180(1), 101–125. PubMed
Mastroianni, A. C. (2006). Liability, regulation and policy in surgical innovation: the cutting edge of research and therapy. Health Matrix, 16(2), 351–442. PubMed
The National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. (1999). Measuring the quality of health care. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Weeks, J. C., Nelson, H., Gelber, S., Sargent, D., Schroeder, G., & Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group (2002). Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 321–328. PubMedCrossRef
Barkun, J. S., Keyser, E. J., Wexler, M. J., Fried, G. M., Hinchey, E. J., Fernandez, M., & Meakins, J. L. (1999) Short-term outcomes in open vs. laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: confounding impact of worker’s compensation on convalescence. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 3(6), 575–582. PubMedCrossRef
Neumayer, L., Giobbie-Hurder, A., Jonasson, O., Fitzgibbons, R. Jr., Dunlop, D., Gibbs, J., Reda, D., Henderson, W., & Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. (2004). Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. New England Journal of Medicine, 350(18), 1819–1827. PubMedCrossRef
Squirrell, D. M., Majeed, A. W., Troy, G., Peacock, J. E., Nicholl, J. P., & Johnson, A. G. (1998). A randomized, prospective, blinded comparison of postoperative pain, metabolic response, and perceived health after laparoscopic and small incision cholecystectomy. Surgery, 123(5), 485–495. PubMedCrossRef
Kleinbeck, S. V. (2000). Self-reported at-home postoperative recovery. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 461–472. CrossRef
Strasberg, S. M., & Ludbrook, P. A. (2003). Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 6, 938–948. CrossRef
Leventhal H., Meyer D., & Nerenz, D. (1980). The common sense representation of illness danger. In S. Rachman (Ed.), Contributions to medical psychology (pp. 7–30). New York: Pergamon Press.
Leventhal, H. (1983). Behavioral medicine: Psychology in health care. In D. Mechanic (Ed.), Handbook of health, health care, and the health professions (pp. 709–743). New York: Free Press.
Leventhal, H., & Johnson, J. E. (1983). Laboratory and field experimentation: Development of a theory of self-regulation. In P. J. Woolridge, M. H. Schmitt, J. K. Skipper & R. C. Leonard (Eds.), Behavior science and nursing theory (pp. 189–262). St. Louis: Mosby.
Leventhal, H., Nerenz, D. R., & Steele, D. J. (1983). Illness representations and coping with health threats. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and health (pp. 219–252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Andreoli, K. G. (1990). Key aspects of recovery. New York: Springer.
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press: New York.
Stewart, D. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Gandek, B., Ware, J. E., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J. B., Brazier, J. E., Bullinger, M., Kaasa, S., Leplege, A., Prieto, L., & Sullivan, M. (1998). Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1171–1178. PubMedCrossRef
McCorkle, R., & Quint-Benoliel, J. (1983) Symptom distress, current concerns and mood disturbance after diagnosis of life-threatening disease. Social Science & Medicine, 17, 431–438. CrossRef
Mangione, C. M., Goldman, L., Orav, E. J., Marcantonio, E. R., Pedan, A., Ludwig, L. E., Donaldson, M. C., Sugarbaker, D. J., Poss, R., & Lee, T. H. (1997). Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(11), 686–697. PubMedCrossRef
- Development and validation of the convalescence and recovery evaluation (CARE) for measuring quality of life after surgery
Brent K. Hollenbeck
Rodney L. Dunn
J. Stuart Wolf Jr
Martin G. Sanda
David P. Wood
Scott M. Gilbert
Alon Z. Weizer
James E. Montie
John T. Wei
- Springer Netherlands