Helen Harcombe1, John Langley1, Gabrielle Davie2, Sarah Derrett1. 1. Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. 2. Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. Electronic address: gabrielle.davie@ipru.otago.ac.nz.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Functional status can be affected for considerable time after injury. Individual's functional status trajectories, or pathways, following injury may provide insights into achieving, or not achieving, optimal functional status. This study aims to (1) investigate functional status trajectories of injured individuals over two years by multiple dimensions and, (2) determine whether there are differences in functional status trajectories between those hospitalised and non-hospitalised. METHODS: Data from the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, a longitudinal cohort (n=2856) of injured New Zealanders, was used. Functional status was assessed using the EQ-5D (plus a cognitive dimension) at 3, 12 and 24 months post injury. For each dimension (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort anxiety/depression and cognition), individual-level trajectories were created based on whether participants had attained (or exceeded) their pre-injury functional status at each time-point. RESULTS: Participants had varied pathways to attaining their pre-injury functional status which was not revealed by cross-sectional group-level data. When all dimensions were considered together, 24% of participants attained their pre-injury functional status but did not maintain it at a subsequent phase. By EQ-5D dimension, this varied from 5% (self-care) to 22% (pain/discomfort). Twenty-six percent of non-hospitalised participants attained, but did not maintain, their pre-injury status compared to 18% of those hospitalised. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional group-level prevalence does not adequately depict the underlying pathways experienced by individual participants. Our analyses indicate the importance of following up all study participants in longitudinal studies, including those reporting to have attained 'recovery' and of not under-estimating the impact of non-hospitalised injuries.
OBJECTIVES: Functional status can be affected for considerable time after injury. Individual's functional status trajectories, or pathways, following injury may provide insights into achieving, or not achieving, optimal functional status. This study aims to (1) investigate functional status trajectories of injured individuals over two years by multiple dimensions and, (2) determine whether there are differences in functional status trajectories between those hospitalised and non-hospitalised. METHODS: Data from the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, a longitudinal cohort (n=2856) of injured New Zealanders, was used. Functional status was assessed using the EQ-5D (plus a cognitive dimension) at 3, 12 and 24 months post injury. For each dimension (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort anxiety/depression and cognition), individual-level trajectories were created based on whether participants had attained (or exceeded) their pre-injury functional status at each time-point. RESULTS:Participants had varied pathways to attaining their pre-injury functional status which was not revealed by cross-sectional group-level data. When all dimensions were considered together, 24% of participants attained their pre-injury functional status but did not maintain it at a subsequent phase. By EQ-5D dimension, this varied from 5% (self-care) to 22% (pain/discomfort). Twenty-six percent of non-hospitalised participants attained, but did not maintain, their pre-injury status compared to 18% of those hospitalised. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional group-level prevalence does not adequately depict the underlying pathways experienced by individual participants. Our analyses indicate the importance of following up all study participants in longitudinal studies, including those reporting to have attained 'recovery' and of not under-estimating the impact of non-hospitalised injuries.
Authors: Denise Kendrick; Paula Dhiman; Blerina Kellezi; Carol Coupland; Jessica Whitehead; Kate Beckett; Nicola Christie; Judith Sleney; Jo Barnes; Stephen Joseph; Richard Morriss Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Randall S Burd; Aaron R Jensen; John M VanBuren; Jessica S Alvey; Rachel Richards; Richard Holubkov; Murray M Pollack Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Belinda J Gabbe; Ronan A Lyons; Pamela M Simpson; Frederick P Rivara; Shanthi Ameratunga; Suzanne Polinder; Sarah Derrett; James E Harrison Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: D Kendrick; B Kelllezi; C Coupland; A Maula; K Beckett; R Morriss; S Joseph; J Barnes; J Sleney; N Christie Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Aidan Lyanzhiang Tan; Yi Chiong; Nivedita Nadkarni; Jolene Yu Xuan Cheng; Ming Terk Chiu; Ting Hway Wong Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Sarah Derrett; Emma H Wyeth; Amy Richardson; Gabrielle Davie; Ari Samaranayaka; Rebbecca Lilley; Helen Harcombe Journal: Methods Protoc Date: 2021-05-17
Authors: Belinda J Gabbe; Pam M Simpson; Peter A Cameron; Jennie Ponsford; Ronan A Lyons; Alex Collie; Mark Fitzgerald; Rodney Judson; Warwick J Teague; Sandra Braaf; Andrew Nunn; Shanthi Ameratunga; James E Harrison Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 11.069