W L Watson1, J Ozanne-Smith, J Richardson. 1. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. wendy.watson@general.monash.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to the difficulty in prospectively measuring pre-injury health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in an injured cohort, population norms or retrospective baseline scores are often used as comparators for evaluating post-injury losses. However, there has been little discussion in the literature or research into the soundness of these approaches for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the appropriateness of the retrospectively measured baseline health status and HRQL in an injured population for the purpose of evaluating post-injury losses. METHODS: A cohort of injured admitted to hospital (n=186) was followed up for 12 months after injury. Retrospectively measured pre-injury health status and HRQL scores were compared with those at 12 months after injury for participants who reported complete recovery (n=61) and those who did not. Retrospective baseline scores for the whole cohort were also compared with Australian population norms. RESULTS: For participants who completely recovered, no significant difference was observed between scores at baseline (measured retrospectively) and those at 12 months after injury (36-item Short Form Questionnaire physical component summary z=-1.274, p=0.203; 36-item Short Form Questionnaire mental component summary z=-1.634, p=0.102; Short Form 6 Dimensions: z=-1.405, p=0.296). A borderline significant difference was observed in HRQL as measured by the Assessment of Quality of Life (z=-1.970, p=0.049). Retrospectively measured pre-injury scores were consistently higher than Australian norms for all measures. CONCLUSIONS: The injured population may not be representative of the general population. Consequently, retrospective baseline measurement of pre-injury health states may be more appropriate than general population norms for the purpose of evaluating post-injury losses in this population.
BACKGROUND: Owing to the difficulty in prospectively measuring pre-injury health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in an injured cohort, population norms or retrospective baseline scores are often used as comparators for evaluating post-injury losses. However, there has been little discussion in the literature or research into the soundness of these approaches for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the appropriateness of the retrospectively measured baseline health status and HRQL in an injured population for the purpose of evaluating post-injury losses. METHODS: A cohort of injured admitted to hospital (n=186) was followed up for 12 months after injury. Retrospectively measured pre-injury health status and HRQL scores were compared with those at 12 months after injury for participants who reported complete recovery (n=61) and those who did not. Retrospective baseline scores for the whole cohort were also compared with Australian population norms. RESULTS: For participants who completely recovered, no significant difference was observed between scores at baseline (measured retrospectively) and those at 12 months after injury (36-item Short Form Questionnaire physical component summary z=-1.274, p=0.203; 36-item Short Form Questionnaire mental component summary z=-1.634, p=0.102; Short Form 6 Dimensions: z=-1.405, p=0.296). A borderline significant difference was observed in HRQL as measured by the Assessment of Quality of Life (z=-1.970, p=0.049). Retrospectively measured pre-injury scores were consistently higher than Australian norms for all measures. CONCLUSIONS: The injured population may not be representative of the general population. Consequently, retrospective baseline measurement of pre-injury health states may be more appropriate than general population norms for the purpose of evaluating post-injury losses in this population.
Authors: L M March; M J Cross; H Lapsley; A J Brnabic; K L Tribe; C J Bachmeier; B G Courtenay; P M Brooks Journal: Med J Aust Date: 1999-09-06 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Grace J Kreulen; Manfred Stommel; Barbara A Gutek; Lawton R Burns; Carrie Jo Braden Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Daniel R Reissmann; Antje Erler; Christian Hirsch; Ira Sierwald; Carolina Machuca; Oliver Schierz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Tim K Timmers; Joost A van Herwaarden; Gert-Jan de Borst; Frans L Moll; Luke P H Leenen Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Sarah Derrett; Carolyn Beaver; Martin J Sullivan; G Peter Herbison; Rick Acland; Charlotte Paul Journal: Inj Prev Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 2.399
Authors: Sarah Derrett; Ari Samaranayaka; Suzanne Wilson; John Langley; Shanthi Ameratunga; Ian D Cameron; Rebbecca Lilley; Emma Wyeth; Gabrielle Davie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Belinda J Gabbe; James E Harrison; Ronan A Lyons; Elton R Edwards; Peter A Cameron Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 2.655