Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

24-05-2015

How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery?

Auteurs: Lawrence Lee, Teodora Dumitra, Julio F. Fiore Jr., Nancy E. Mayo, Liane S. Feldman

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 11/2015

Abstract

Purpose

The content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) commonly used to measure postoperative recovery is unknown. The objective of this study was to develop a conceptual framework for recovery after abdominal surgery and to analyze the content of PRO instruments against this conceptual framework.

Methods

Qualitative methods were used to develop a conceptual framework for recovery. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery and healthcare professionals were interviewed. Recovery-related concepts were identified using a thematic analysis, and concepts were then linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The contents of eight PRO instruments that have been used to measure recovery were then examined using this conceptual framework.

Results

A total of 17 patients and 15 healthcare professionals were interviewed. A total of 22 important recovery-related concepts were identified and linked to the ICF. The four most important concepts were “Energy level,” “Sensation of pain,” “General physical endurance,” and “Carrying out daily routine.” The number of important recovery-related concepts covered by each instrument ranged from 1 to 22 (mean 7.3 concepts). The SF36 (n = 22), European Organization for the Treatment and Research of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-C30 (n = 20), and the Gastrointestinal Quality-of-Life Index (n = 19) covered the greatest number of important recovery concepts. No instrument covered all of the important concepts.

Conclusions

The comparison of the contents of PRO instruments commonly used to measure postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery demonstrated major gaps in the representation of concepts that are important to patients and healthcare professionals.

vorige artikel Gender differences in psychological well-being: tests of factorial invariance

volgende artikel Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant

Lee, L., Tran, T., Mayo, N. E., Carli, F., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). What does it really mean to “recover” from an operation? Surgery, 155(2), 211–216.CrossRefPubMed

Neville, A., Lee, L., Antonescu, I., Mayo, N. E., Vassiliou, M. C., Fried, G. M., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 101(3), 159–171.CrossRefPubMed

Miller, T. E., Thacker, J. K., White, W. D., Mantyh, C., Migaly, J., Jin, J., et al. (2014). Reduced length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 118(5), 1052–1061.CrossRefPubMed

Ljungqvist, O., & Rasmussen, L. S. (2014). Recovery after anaesthesia and surgery. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 58(6), 639–641.CrossRefPubMed

Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.CrossRefPubMed

Dowson, H. M., Cowie, A. S., Ballard, K., Gage, H., & Rockall, T. A. (2008). Systematic review of quality of life following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Colorectal Disease, 10(8), 757–768.CrossRefPubMed

Khan, S., Wilson, T., Ahmed, J., Owais, A., & MacFie, J. (2010). Quality of life and patient satisfaction with enhanced recovery protocols. Colorectal Disease, 12(12), 1175–1182.CrossRefPubMed

Bartels, S. A., Vlug, M. S., Ubbink, D. T., & Bemelman, W. A. (2010). Quality of life after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: A systematic review. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 16(40), 5035–5041.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

10.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Press.

11.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.

12.

Stucki, G., Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Ustun, T. B. (2002). Application of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(5), 281–282.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Weigl, M., Cieza, A., Harder, M., Geyh, S., Amann, E., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2003). Linking osteoarthritis-specific health-status measures to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 11(7), 519–523.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Kollerits, B., Grimby, G., & Stucki, G. (2007). Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 833–851.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tschiesner, U., Rogers, S. N., Harreus, U., Berghaus, A., & Cieza, A. (2008). Content comparison of quality of life questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: A systematic review. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 265(6), 627–637.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustun, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Spitzer, W. O., Dobson, A. J., Hall, J., Chesterman, E., Levi, J., Shepherd, R., et al. (1981). Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: A concise QL-index for use by physicians. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 34(12), 585–597.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Myles, P. S., Hunt, J. O., Nightingale, C. E., Fletcher, H., Beh, T., Tanil, D., et al. (1999). Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 88(1), 83–90.PubMed

20.

Fazio, V. W., O’Riordain, M. G., Lavery, I. C., Church, J. M., Lau, P., Strong, S. A., & Hull, T. (1999). Long-term functional outcome and quality of life after stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Annals of Surgery, 230(4), 575–584.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

21.

Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Eypasch, E., Williams, J. I., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Ure, B. M., Schmulling, C., Neugebauer, E., & Troidl, H. (1995). Gastrointestinal quality of life index: Development, validation and application of a new instrument. British Journal of Surgery, 82(2), 216–222.CrossRefPubMed

23.

EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef

24.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Paddison, J. S., Sammour, T., Kahokehr, A., Zargar-Shoshtari, K., & Hill, A. G. (2011). Development and validation of the surgical recovery scale (SRS). Journal of Surgical Research, 167(2), e85–e91.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P. A. (2004). Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery, 240(2), 205–213.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

27.

Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Leidy, N. K., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health, 12(8), 1075–1083.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Lee, L., Elfassy, N., Li, C., Latimer, E., Liberman, A. S., Charlebois, P., et al. (2013). Valuing postoperative recovery: Validation of the SF-6D health-state utility. Journal of Surgical Research, 184(1), 108–114.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Urbach, D. R., Harnish, J. L., & Long, G. (2005). Short-term health-related quality of life after abdominal surgery: A conceptual framework. Surgical Innovation, 12(3), 243–247.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Allvin, R., Berg, K., Idvall, E., & Nilsson, U. (2007). Postoperative recovery: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(5), 552–558.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Mayo, N. E., Moriello, C., Asano, M., van der Spuy, S., & Finch, L. (2011). The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function. Quality of Life Research, 20(5), 621–627.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kluivers, K. B., Riphagen, I., Vierhout, M. E., Brolmann, H. A., & de Vet, H. C. (2008). Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments. Surgery, 143(2), 206–215.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry—Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2013.

34.

Lee, L., Mata, J., Augustin, B. R., Carli, F., Morin, N., Latimer, E., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery. Journal of Surgical Research, 190(1), 79–86.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Hobart, J. C., Cano, S. J., Zajicek, J. P., & Thompson, A. J. (2007). Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: Problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurology, 6(12), 1094–1105.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery?
Auteurs: Lawrence Lee
Teodora Dumitra
Julio F. Fiore Jr.
Nancy E. Mayo
Liane S. Feldman
Publicatiedatum: 24-05-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1008-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2015

Örebro Questionnaire: short and long forms of the Brazilian-Portuguese version

Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases

Long-term health-related quality of life for patients with Hirschsprung’s disease at 5 years after transanal endorectal pull-through operation

Health-related quality of life after stroke: reliability and validity of the Duke Health Profile for use in Vietnam

Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why?

EQ-5D-3L as a health measure of Brazilian adult population