nach oben

Erschienen in:

29.03.2017

Changes in quality of life after elective surgery: an observational study comparing two measures

verfasst von: Vanessa L. Kronzer, Michelle R. Jerry, Arbi Ben Abdallah, Troy S. Wildes, Sherry L. McKinnon, Anshuman Sharma, Michael S. Avidan

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Our main objective was to compare the change in a validated quality of life measure to a global assessment measure. The secondary objectives were to estimate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and to describe the change in quality of life by surgical specialty.

Methods

This prospective cohort study included 7902 adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Changes in the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), composed of a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS), were calculated using preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. The latter also contained a global assessment question for quality of life. We compared PCS and MCS to the global assessment using descriptive statistics and weighted kappa. MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach. Analyses were pre-specified and registered (NCT02771964).

Results

By the change in VR-12 scores, an equal proportion of patients experienced improvement and deterioration in quality of life (28% for PCS, 25% for MCS). In contrast, by the global assessment measure, 61% reported improvement, while only 10% reported deterioration. Agreement with the global assessment was slight for both PCS (kappa = 0.20, 57% matched) and MCS (kappa = 0.10, 54% matched). The MCID for the overall VR-12 score was approximately 2.5 points. Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery showed the most improvement in quality of life measures, while patients undergoing gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary or urologic surgery showed the most deterioration.

Conclusions

Subjective global quality of life report does not agree well with a validated quality of life instrument, perhaps due to patient over-optimism.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Urbach, D. R. (2005). Measuring quality of life after surgery. Surgical Innovation, 12(2), 161–165.CrossRefPubMed

Lohr, K. N., & Zebrack, B. J. (2009). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Challenges and opportunities. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 99–107.CrossRefPubMed

Suk, K. S., Baek, J. H., Park, J. O., Kim, H. S., Lee, H. M., Kwon, J. W., et al. (2015). Postoperative quality of life in patients with progressive neuromuscular scoliosis and their parents. The Spine Journal, 15(3), 446–453.CrossRefPubMed

Noyez, L. (2014). Is quality of life post cardiac surgery overestimated? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Maillard, J., Elia, N., Haller, C. S., Delhumeau, C., & Walder, B. (2015). Preoperative and early postoperative quality of life after major surgery - a prospective observational study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., Schwarz, N., & Smith, D. (2005). Misimagining the unimaginable: The disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4 Suppl), S57–S62.CrossRefPubMed

Velanovich, V., Younga, J., Bhandarkar, V., Marshall, N., McLaren, P., Ritz, J., et al. (2012). A single, global patient-centered measure from the SF-36 instrument to assess surgical outcomes and quality of life: A pilot study. World Journal of Surgery, 36(9), 2045–2050.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, D., Loewenstein, G., Jepson, C., Jankovich, A., Feldman, H., & Ubel, P. (2008). Mispredicting and misremembering: Patients with renal failure overestimate improvements in quality of life after a kidney transplant. Health Psychology, 27(5), 653–658.CrossRefPubMed

Mather, M., Shafir, E., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misremembrance of options past: Source monitoring and choice. Psychological Science, 11(2), 132–138.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Smith, D. M., Sherriff, R. L., Damschroder, L., Loewenstein, G., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients. Health Psychology, 25(6), 688–695.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mangione, C. M., Goldman, L., Orav, E. J., Marcantonio, E. R., Pedan, A., Ludwig, L. E., et al. (1997). Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(11), 686–697.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Turel, M. K., Thakar, S., & Rajshekhar, V. (2015). Quality of life following surgery for large and giant vestibular schwannomas: A prospective study. Journal of Neurosurgery, 122(2), 303–311.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Carreon, L. Y., Bratcher, K. R., Canan, C. E., Burke, L. O., Djurasovic, M., & Glassman, S. D. (2013). Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 18(1), 102–106.PubMed

14.

Zhou, F., Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., Zhang, F., Pan, S., & Liu, Z. (2015). Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: A prospective cohort study. European Spine Journal, 24(12), 2918–2923.CrossRefPubMed

15.

von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2014). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 12(12), 1495–1499.CrossRef

16.

Avidan, M. S. ([cited 2016 Feb 10]). Systematic Assessment and Targeted Improvement of Services Following Yearlong Surgical Outcomes Surveys (SATISFY-SOS). In: ClinicalTrials.gov.

17.

Kronzer, V. L., Jerry, M. R., & Avidan, M. S. (2016). Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: Protocol for an observational comparison study. F1000Research, 5, 976.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., Clark, J. A., et al. (2006). Applications of methodologies of the Veterans Health Study in the VA healthcare system: Conclusions and summary. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29(2), 182–188.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kazis, L. E., Selim, A., Rogers, W., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., & Miller, D. R. (2006). Dissemination of methods and results from the veterans health study: Final comments and implications for future monitoring strategies within and outside the veterans healthcare system. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29(4), 310–319.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., et al. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 43–52.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lamb, S. E., Jorstad-Stein, E. C., Hauer, K., & Becker, C. (2005). Development of a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials: The Prevention of Falls Network Europe consensus. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(9), 1618–1622.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kronzer, V. L., Jerry, M. R., Ben Abdallah, A., Wildes, T. S., Stark, S. L., McKinnon, S. L., et al. (2016). Preoperative falls predict postoperative falls, functional decline, and surgical complications. EBioMedicine, 12, 302–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

van Buuren, S. (2007). Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16(3), 219–242.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. Measurement of interrater agreement: A SAS/IML Macro Kappa procedure for handling incomplete data. In Twenty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, April 11–14, 1999 (pp. 1620–1625).

25.

Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32–35.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lee, T. H., Marcantonio, E. R., Mangione, C. M., Thomas, E. J., Polanczyk, C. A., Cook, E. F., et al. (1999). Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation, 100(10), 1043–1049.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.PubMed

29.

Coteur, G., Feagan, B., Keininger, D. L., & Kosinski, M. (2009). Evaluation of the meaningfulness of health-related quality of life improvements as assessed by the SF-36 and the EQ-5D VAS in patients with active Crohn’s disease. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 29(9), 1032–1041.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Zhang, Y., Zhou, F., & Sun, Y. (2015). Assessment of health-related quality of life using the SF-36 in Chinese cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients after surgery and its consistency with neurological function assessment: A cohort study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Bahler, C. D., & Sundaram, C. P. (2013). Quality of life following laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 17(2), 273–278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Dawson, J., Doll, H., Coffey, J., & Jenkinson, C. (2007). Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 15(8), 918–931.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Shi, H. Y., Lee, H. H., Chiu, C. C., Chiu, H. C., Uen, Y. H., & Lee, K. T. (2008). Responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences after cholecystectomy: GIQLI versus SF-36. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 12(7), 1275–1282.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Bilbao, A., Quintana, J. M., Escobar, A., Garcia, S., Andradas, E., Bare, M., et al. (2009). Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the VF-14 index, SF-36, and visual acuity in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Ophthalmology, 116(3), 418–424.e411.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Helsten, D. L., Abdallah, A. B., Avidan, M. S., Wildes, T. S., Winter, A., McKinnon, S. L., et al. (2016). Methodological considerations for collecting patient reported outcomes from unselected surgical patients. Anesthesiology, 125(3), 495–504.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W. Jr., & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Wright, A., Hannon, J., Hegedus, E. J., & Kavchak, A. E. (2012). Clinimetrics corner: A closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 20(3), 160–166.CrossRef

Titel: Changes in quality of life after elective surgery: an observational study comparing two measures
verfasst von: Vanessa L. Kronzer
Michelle R. Jerry
Arbi Ben Abdallah
Troy S. Wildes
Sherry L. McKinnon
Anshuman Sharma
Michael S. Avidan
Publikationsdatum: 29.03.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1560-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2017

Effects of long-term multicomponent exercise on health-related quality of life in older adults with type 2 diabetes: evidence from a cohort study

Decrements in health-related quality of life associated with gender nonconformity among U.S. adolescents and young adults

An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D

Psychometric validation of the dysmenorrhea daily diary (DysDD): a patient-reported outcome for dysmenorrhea

Erratum to: Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

Predictors of the course of quality of life during therapy in women with primary breast cancer