Literature DB >> 23519975

Changing values, changing outcomes: the influence of reprioritization response shift on outcome assessment after spine surgery.

Carolyn E Schwartz1, Tolulope T Sajobi, Lisa M Lix, Brian R Quaranto, Joel A Finkelstein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When patients experience a substantial health state change, they may undergo changes in the underlying meaning of their self-report to standardized outcome measures. These response shifts can reflect changes in the patient's internal standards, values or conceptualization of quality of life. We investigated the presence of changing values (reprioritization response shift) in a longitudinal cohort of spine surgery patients.
METHODS: Spinal decompression surgery patients (mean age 52 years; 39 % female, 36 % working) provided visual analogue scale (VAS) back and leg pain items, the Short-Form-36 (SF-36v1), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data pre- and post-surgery (n pre = 169; n 6weeks = 102; n 3months = 106; n 6months = 68). Improved and No-Effect patient groups were compared using the VAS minimally important difference (±15 points) as a cutoff. Reprioritization response shift detection was based on change in the relative importance of the SF-36 domains for group discrimination pre- and post-surgery.
RESULTS: The Improved group evidenced significant post-surgery differences from the No-Effect group on bodily pain, general health, physical functioning, social functioning, vitality, and the ODI. The relative importance analysis showed a differential effect with bodily pain (p < 0.01) and physical functioning (p < 0.05) becoming more important, and role physical (p < 0.01) becoming less important post-surgery in distinguishing the Improved group as compared to the No-Effect group. The Improved patients also evidenced stronger associations between bodily pain and physical functioning, vitality and general health (p < 0.05). The No-Effect group evidenced increased inter-correlations of bodily pain with social functioning, mental health, and general health (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who report clinically significant change in leg and back pain post-surgery using VAS pain scores are also distinguished by increased importance of bodily pain and physical functioning, and decreased importance of role physical. Bodily pain is primarily reflective of physical item response post-surgery among Improved patients, but reflects physical, social, and emotional item response among No-Effect patients. These changes in values may reflect a "moving goal post" in outcome assessment that complicates the interpretation of mean differences over time on standard spine outcome measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23519975     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0377-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  32 in total

Review 1.  Assessing the Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes (ASCPRO): searching for standards.

Authors:  Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step toward consensus.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; David Cella; Ron D Hays
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations.

Authors:  Guang Yong Zou
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-12

4.  Clinical practice guidelines versus systematic reviews; which serve as the best basis for evidence-based spine medicine?

Authors:  Michael D Freeman
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Response shift and outcome assessment in orthopedic surgery: is there a difference between complete and partial treatment?

Authors:  Joel A Finkelstein; Helen Razmjou; Carolyn E Schwartz
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  The symptom inventory disability-specific short forms for multiple sclerosis: reliability and factor structure.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Rita K Bode; Timothy Vollmer
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds.

Authors:  G L Albrecht; P J Devlieger
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Redefining health: living with cancer.

Authors:  M Kagawa-Singer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 9.  Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Bruce D Rapkin
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2004-03-23       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  11 in total

1.  Life satisfaction in adult survivors of childhood brain tumors.

Authors:  Deborah B Crom; Zhenghong Li; Tara M Brinkman; Melissa M Hudson; Gregory T Armstrong; Joseph Neglia; Kirsten K Ness
Journal:  J Pediatr Oncol Nurs       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 1.636

2.  Guidelines for secondary analysis in search of response shift.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Sara Ahmed; Richard Sawatzky; Tolulope Sajobi; Nancy Mayo; Joel Finkelstein; Lisa Lix; Mathilde G E Verdam; Frans J Oort; Mirjam A G Sprangers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  [Patient perspective of pain assessment by nursing personnel : Qualitative cross-sectional study on use of the NRS].

Authors:  L Gerken; A Windisch; R Thalhammer; S Olwitz; E Fay; H Al Hussini; B Reuschenbach
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.107

4.  Identifying reprioritization response shift in a stroke caregiver population: a comparison of missing data methods.

Authors:  Tolulope T Sajobi; Lisa M Lix; Gurbakhshash Singh; Mark Lowerison; Jordan Engbers; Nancy E Mayo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Distinguishing appraisal and personality influences on quality of life in chronic illness: introducing the quality-of-life Appraisal Profile version 2.

Authors:  Bruce D Rapkin; Iliana Garcia; Wesley Michael; Jie Zhang; Carolyn E Schwartz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Idiographic quality of life assessment before radical cystectomy.

Authors:  Christopher B Anderson; Bruce Rapkin; Brieyona C Reaves; Arony J Sun; Bradley Morganstern; Guido Dalbagni; Machele Donat; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone; Bernard H Bochner
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Evaluating quality of life and response shift from a couple-based perspective: a study among patients with colorectal cancer and their partners.

Authors:  Marjan J Traa; Johan Braeken; Jolanda De Vries; Jan A Roukema; Ricardo G Orsini; Brenda L Den Oudsten
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Health-related quality of life in women referred for bone density assessment: relationships with bone mineral density, fracture and co-morbidity.

Authors:  Sally Wilson; Christopher A Sharp; Michael W J Davie
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Response shift and disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Lisa M Lix; Eric K H Chan; Richard Sawatzky; Tolulope T Sajobi; Juxin Liu; Wilma Hopman; Nancy Mayo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Long-term (> 10 years) clinical outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  A M Lehr; D Delawi; J L C van Susante; N Verschoor; N Wolterbeek; F C Oner; M C Kruyt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.