Literature DB >> 26003316

How well are we measuring postoperative "recovery" after abdominal surgery?

Lawrence Lee1, Teodora Dumitra2, Julio F Fiore2,3, Nancy E Mayo3, Liane S Feldman2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) commonly used to measure postoperative recovery is unknown. The objective of this study was to develop a conceptual framework for recovery after abdominal surgery and to analyze the content of PRO instruments against this conceptual framework.
METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to develop a conceptual framework for recovery. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery and healthcare professionals were interviewed. Recovery-related concepts were identified using a thematic analysis, and concepts were then linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The contents of eight PRO instruments that have been used to measure recovery were then examined using this conceptual framework.
RESULTS: A total of 17 patients and 15 healthcare professionals were interviewed. A total of 22 important recovery-related concepts were identified and linked to the ICF. The four most important concepts were "Energy level," "Sensation of pain," "General physical endurance," and "Carrying out daily routine." The number of important recovery-related concepts covered by each instrument ranged from 1 to 22 (mean 7.3 concepts). The SF36 (n = 22), European Organization for the Treatment and Research of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-C30 (n = 20), and the Gastrointestinal Quality-of-Life Index (n = 19) covered the greatest number of important recovery concepts. No instrument covered all of the important concepts.
CONCLUSIONS: The comparison of the contents of PRO instruments commonly used to measure postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery demonstrated major gaps in the representation of concepts that are important to patients and healthcare professionals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Content validity; Function; ICF; Quality of life; Recovery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26003316     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1008-5

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


  32 in total

1.  The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function.

Authors:  Nancy E Mayo; Carolina Moriello; Miho Asano; Susara van der Spuy; Lois Finch
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-11-25       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  Kirsten B Kluivers; Ingrid Riphagen; Mark E Vierhout; Hans A M Brölmann; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Recovery after anaesthesia and surgery.

Authors:  O Ljungqvist; L S Rasmussen
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.105

5.  Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians.

Authors:  W O Spitzer; A J Dobson; J Hall; E Chesterman; J Levi; R Shepherd; R N Battista; B R Catchlove
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1981

6.  Short-term health-related quality of life after abdominal surgery: a conceptual framework.

Authors:  David R Urbach; Julie L Harnish; Gina Long
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.058

7.  Valuing postoperative recovery: validation of the SF-6D health-state utility.

Authors:  Lawrence Lee; Nathaniel Elfassy; Chao Li; Eric Latimer; A Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; Franco Carli; Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 2.192

8.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

Authors:  N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-03-03       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 9.  Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report.

Authors:  Margaret Rothman; Laurie Burke; Pennifer Erickson; Nancy Kline Leidy; Donald L Patrick; Charles D Petrie
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 10.  Content comparison of quality of life questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review.

Authors:  U Tschiesner; S N Rogers; U Harréus; A Berghaus; A Cieza
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.503

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Public reporting and transparency: a primer on public outcomes reporting.

Authors:  John R Romanelli; Pascal R Fuchshuber; Jonah James Stulberg; Rebecca Brewer Kowalski; Prashant Sinha; Thomas A Aloia; Rocco Orlando
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  The impact of bowel dysfunction on health-related quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  F Al Rashid; A S Liberman; P Charlebois; B Stein; L S Feldman; J F Fiore; L Lee
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 3.699

3.  Does adherence to perioperative enhanced recovery pathway elements influence patient-reported recovery following colorectal resection?

Authors:  Nicolò Pecorelli; Saba Balvardi; A Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; Franco Carli; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Impact of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy on recovery of physical activity: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Mohsen Alhashemi; Mohammed Almahroos; Julio F Fiore; Pepa Kaneva; Juan Mata Gutierrez; Amy Neville; Melina C Vassiliou; Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  In Reply.

Authors:  Martin S Angst; Gabriela K Fragiadakis; Brice Gaudillière; Nima Aghaeepour; Garry P Nolan
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of recovery after abdominal surgery: a hypothesized conceptual framework.

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

7.  Development of a patient-reported outcome tool for assessing symptom burden during perioperative care in liver surgery: The MDASI-PeriOp-Hep.

Authors:  Xin Shelley Wang; Qiuling Shi; Loretta A Williams; Heather A Lillemoe; Ting-Yu Chen; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Araceli Garcia-Gonzalez; Donna Malveaux; Mona Kamal; Charles S Cleeland; Thomas A Aloia
Journal:  Eur J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.588

8.  Using PROMIS for measuring recovery after abdominal surgery: a pilot study.

Authors:  Eva van der Meij; Johannes R Anema; Judith A F Huirne; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Postoperative complications and mobilisation following major abdominal surgery with vs. without fitness tracker-based feedback (EXPELLIARMUS): study protocol for a student-led multicentre randomised controlled trial (CHIR-Net SIGMA study group).

Authors:  Marius Schwab; Niall Brindl; Alexander Studier-Fischer; Thomas Tu; Julia Gsenger; Max Pilgrim; Mirco Friedrich; Pia-Elena Frey; Christina Achilles; Alexander Leuck; Thore Bürgel; Manuel Feisst; Christina Klose; Solveig Tenckhoff; Colette Dörr-Harim; André L Mihaljevic
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 2.279

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.