BACKGROUND: While the primary goal of trauma care continues to be the preservation of life, interest has begun to focus on disability and quality of life of those who survive. Numerous instruments have been developed to measure personal well-being, impairment, or subjective life-satisfaction. But there is no consensus regarding which instruments are most appropriate to use in multiply injured patients, and comparison of results are difficult. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multinational conference was to arrive at a consensus regarding the measurement of quality of life in survivors of multiple trauma. Specifically we sought to identify the best time intervals for measurement and a minimum set of instruments. METHOD: The group reviewed instruments currently in use for quality of life measurement in multiply injured patients. A structured discussion covered the following topics: definition of the population, the concept of quality of life, the importance of different domains of quality of life at different time points, the type of measures and their validity, consistency, and practicability, the mode of administration, subject burden, and availability of population norms. RESULTS: The group suggested three time points, after 3, 12 and 24 months, for the assessment of quality of life after multiple injury. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was suggested as an overall global outcome measure including death and vegetative state. The EuroQol was proposed to permit economic analysis, and the SF-36 as a validated global quality of life measure. CONCLUSION: While most selected measures are psychometrically sound, many have had limited use in the setting of multiple injuries. Researchers and clinicians may use these suggestions as a source of information when developing a measurement strategy.
BACKGROUND: While the primary goal of trauma care continues to be the preservation of life, interest has begun to focus on disability and quality of life of those who survive. Numerous instruments have been developed to measure personal well-being, impairment, or subjective life-satisfaction. But there is no consensus regarding which instruments are most appropriate to use in multiply injured patients, and comparison of results are difficult. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multinational conference was to arrive at a consensus regarding the measurement of quality of life in survivors of multiple trauma. Specifically we sought to identify the best time intervals for measurement and a minimum set of instruments. METHOD: The group reviewed instruments currently in use for quality of life measurement in multiply injured patients. A structured discussion covered the following topics: definition of the population, the concept of quality of life, the importance of different domains of quality of life at different time points, the type of measures and their validity, consistency, and practicability, the mode of administration, subject burden, and availability of population norms. RESULTS: The group suggested three time points, after 3, 12 and 24 months, for the assessment of quality of life after multiple injury. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was suggested as an overall global outcome measure including death and vegetative state. The EuroQol was proposed to permit economic analysis, and the SF-36 as a validated global quality of life measure. CONCLUSION: While most selected measures are psychometrically sound, many have had limited use in the setting of multiple injuries. Researchers and clinicians may use these suggestions as a source of information when developing a measurement strategy.
Authors: Bruno Neuner; Peter M Miller; Bodo Felsmann; Edith Weiss-Gerlach; Tim Neumann; Klaus Dieter Wernecke; Claudia Spies Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 3.186