J T Wilson1, L E Pettigrew, G M Teasdale. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. j.t.l.wilson@stir.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is current debate over the issue of the best way of assessing outcome after head injury. One criticism of scales of disability and handicap such as the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) is that they fail to capture the subjective perspective of the person with head injury. The aims of the study were to investigate aspects of the validity of structured interviews for the GOS, and address the issue of the relation between the GOS and subjective reports of health outcome. METHODS: A total of 135 patients with head injury were assessed using the GOS and an extended GOS (GOSE) and other measures of outcome and clinical status at 6 months after injury. RESULTS: There were robust correlations between the GOS and measures of initial injury severity (particularly post-traumatic amnesia) and outcome assessed by disability scales (particularly the disbility rating scale (DRS)); however, associations with cognitive tests were generally modest. There were also strong correlations with self report measures of health outcome: both the GOS and GOSE were related to depression measured by the Beck depression inventory, mental wellbeing assessed by the general health questionnaire, and to all subscales of the short form-36. The GOS scales were also strongly associated with frequency of reported symptoms and problems on the neurobehavioural functioning inventory. CONCLUSIONS: The GOS and GOSE show consistent relations with other outcome measures including subjective reports of health outcome; they thus remain useful overall summary assessments of outcome of head injury.
OBJECTIVE: There is current debate over the issue of the best way of assessing outcome after head injury. One criticism of scales of disability and handicap such as the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) is that they fail to capture the subjective perspective of the person with head injury. The aims of the study were to investigate aspects of the validity of structured interviews for the GOS, and address the issue of the relation between the GOS and subjective reports of health outcome. METHODS: A total of 135 patients with head injury were assessed using the GOS and an extended GOS (GOSE) and other measures of outcome and clinical status at 6 months after injury. RESULTS: There were robust correlations between the GOS and measures of initial injury severity (particularly post-traumatic amnesia) and outcome assessed by disability scales (particularly the disbility rating scale (DRS)); however, associations with cognitive tests were generally modest. There were also strong correlations with self report measures of health outcome: both the GOS and GOSE were related to depression measured by the Beck depression inventory, mental wellbeing assessed by the general health questionnaire, and to all subscales of the short form-36. The GOS scales were also strongly associated with frequency of reported symptoms and problems on the neurobehavioural functioning inventory. CONCLUSIONS: The GOS and GOSE show consistent relations with other outcome measures including subjective reports of health outcome; they thus remain useful overall summary assessments of outcome of head injury.
Authors: P Satz; K Zaucha; D L Forney; C McCleary; R F Asarnow; R Light; H Levin; D Kelly; M Bergsneider; D Hovda; N Martin; M J Caron; N Namerow; D Becker Journal: Brain Inj Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Raj K Narayan; Mary Ellen Michel; Beth Ansell; Alex Baethmann; Anat Biegon; Michael B Bracken; M Ross Bullock; Sung C Choi; Guy L Clifton; Charles F Contant; William M Coplin; W Dalton Dietrich; Jamshid Ghajar; Sean M Grady; Robert G Grossman; Edward D Hall; William Heetderks; David A Hovda; Jack Jallo; Russell L Katz; Nachshon Knoller; Patrick M Kochanek; Andrew I Maas; Jeannine Majde; Donald W Marion; Anthony Marmarou; Lawrence F Marshall; Tracy K McIntosh; Emmy Miller; Noel Mohberg; J Paul Muizelaar; Lawrence H Pitts; Peter Quinn; Gad Riesenfeld; Claudia S Robertson; Kenneth I Strauss; Graham Teasdale; Nancy Temkin; Ronald Tuma; Charles Wade; Michael D Walker; Michael Weinrich; John Whyte; Jack Wilberger; A Byron Young; Lorraine Yurkewicz Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: James Weir; Ewout W Steyerberg; Isabella Butcher; Juan Lu; Hester F Lingsma; Gillian S McHugh; Bob Roozenbeek; Andrew I R Maas; Gordon D Murray Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Paul Vespa; Marvin Bergsneider; Nayoa Hattori; Hsiao-Ming Wu; Sung-Cheng Huang; Neil A Martin; Thomas C Glenn; David L McArthur; David A Hovda Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Carlos D Marquez de la Plata; Tessa Hart; Flora M Hammond; Alan B Frol; Anne Hudak; Caryn R Harper; Therese M O'Neil-Pirozzi; John Whyte; Mary Carlile; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Esther L Yuh; Pratik Mukherjee; Hester F Lingsma; John K Yue; Adam R Ferguson; Wayne A Gordon; Alex B Valadka; David M Schnyer; David O Okonkwo; Andrew I R Maas; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Felicia C Goldstein; Angela F Caveney; Vicki S Hertzberg; Robert Silbergleit; Sharon D Yeatts; Yuko Y Palesch; Harvey S Levin; David W Wright Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 5.269