AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The previously developed Postoperative Recovery Profile (PRP) questionnaire is intended for self-assessment of general recovery after surgery. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the questionnaire regarding the construct validity and ability to discriminate recovery profiles between groups. Furthermore, the item variables of greatest importance during the progress of recovery were investigated. METHODS: Post-operative recovery was assessed during the period from discharge to 12 months after lower abdominal and orthopaedic surgery. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and a global recovery scale. Recovery profiles of the diagnose groups were displayed by the cumulative proportion recovered participants over time. The importance of item variables was investigated by ranking ordering. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included. Support was given for good construct validity. The result showed that 7.6% of all possible pairs were disordered when comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and the global recovery scale. Twelve months after discharge the PRP assessments discriminated significantly the recovery profiles of the abdominal and orthopaedic groups. The variable pain was one of the top five most important issues at each follow-up occasion in both study groups. The importance of the item variables was thereby emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The PRP questionnaire allows for evaluation of the progress of post-operative recovery, and can be useful to assess patient-reported recovery after surgical treatment both on individual and group levels. Knowledge about recovery profiles can assist clinicians in determining the critical time points for measuring change.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The previously developed Postoperative Recovery Profile (PRP) questionnaire is intended for self-assessment of general recovery after surgery. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the questionnaire regarding the construct validity and ability to discriminate recovery profiles between groups. Furthermore, the item variables of greatest importance during the progress of recovery were investigated. METHODS: Post-operative recovery was assessed during the period from discharge to 12 months after lower abdominal and orthopaedic surgery. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and a global recovery scale. Recovery profiles of the diagnose groups were displayed by the cumulative proportion recovered participants over time. The importance of item variables was investigated by ranking ordering. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included. Support was given for good construct validity. The result showed that 7.6% of all possible pairs were disordered when comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and the global recovery scale. Twelve months after discharge the PRP assessments discriminated significantly the recovery profiles of the abdominal and orthopaedic groups. The variable pain was one of the top five most important issues at each follow-up occasion in both study groups. The importance of the item variables was thereby emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The PRP questionnaire allows for evaluation of the progress of post-operative recovery, and can be useful to assess patient-reported recovery after surgical treatment both on individual and group levels. Knowledge about recovery profiles can assist clinicians in determining the critical time points for measuring change.
Authors: Harry C Alexander; Cindy H Nguyen; Matthew R Moore; Adam S Bartlett; Jacqueline A Hannam; Garth H Poole; Alan F Merry Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Roshni Alam; Sabrina M Figueiredo; Saba Balvardi; Bénédicte Nauche; Tara Landry; Lawrence Lee; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: E Angenete; U Angerås; M Börjesson; J Ekelund; M Gellerstedt; T Thorsteinsdottir; G Steineck; E Haglind Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Maurice Theunissen; Madelon L Peters; Jan Schepers; Jacques W M Maas; Fleur Tournois; Hans A van Suijlekom; Hans-Fritz Gramke; Marco A E Marcus Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 1.889