R Lefering1, T Tecic2, Y Schmidt3, N Pirente4, B Bouillon5, E Neugebauer6. 1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. rolf.lefering@uni-wh.de. 2. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. tanja.tecic@uk-koeln.de. 3. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. Yvette.Schmidt@psychologie-services.de. 4. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. kontakt@praxispirente.de. 5. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany. BouillonB@kliniken-koeln.de. 6. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. emdund.neugebauer@uni-wh.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Due to an increasing number of survivors after multiple injuries in Western countries, the health-related quality of life (QoL) is considered to be an important outcome parameter. Up to now, measuring instruments used in this field lacked validity and comparability. Within 6 years, our working group developed a new modular instrument, called the Polytrauma Outcome (POLO) chart. This study documents the validation of the trauma-specific module specifically designed for trauma patients, the Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP). METHODS: A total of 172 multiply injured patients (mean Injury Severity Score [ISS] 26.7) recruited from eight trauma centres participating in the German Trauma Registry were compared with 166 marginally injured patients (mean ISS 3.9). The mean follow-up was 24.2 and 26.4 months, respectively. The validation questionnaires used were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), Social Support Questionnaire (F-SOZU-K-22), Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: The internal consistency of the different dimensions of QoL assessed with the TOP was good. Factor analysis provides evidence of the construct validity of the questionnaire. Correlation with external measures gives evidence of criterion validity for the various dimensions of QoL and similar exceedance of proposed cut-off points within TOP and external measures is verified. CONCLUSION: The TOP module is a reliable and valid instrument to assess health-related QoL in patients with multiple injuries. It can be used stand-alone or as part of the POLO chart together with the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), the EuroQoL and the SF-36 as a regular systematic follow-up instrument.
PURPOSE: Due to an increasing number of survivors after multiple injuries in Western countries, the health-related quality of life (QoL) is considered to be an important outcome parameter. Up to now, measuring instruments used in this field lacked validity and comparability. Within 6 years, our working group developed a new modular instrument, called the Polytrauma Outcome (POLO) chart. This study documents the validation of the trauma-specific module specifically designed for traumapatients, the Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP). METHODS: A total of 172 multiply injured patients (mean Injury Severity Score [ISS] 26.7) recruited from eight trauma centres participating in the German Trauma Registry were compared with 166 marginally injured patients (mean ISS 3.9). The mean follow-up was 24.2 and 26.4 months, respectively. The validation questionnaires used were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), Social Support Questionnaire (F-SOZU-K-22), Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: The internal consistency of the different dimensions of QoL assessed with the TOP was good. Factor analysis provides evidence of the construct validity of the questionnaire. Correlation with external measures gives evidence of criterion validity for the various dimensions of QoL and similar exceedance of proposed cut-off points within TOP and external measures is verified. CONCLUSION: The TOP module is a reliable and valid instrument to assess health-related QoL in patients with multiple injuries. It can be used stand-alone or as part of the POLO chart together with the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), the EuroQoL and the SF-36 as a regular systematic follow-up instrument.
Entities:
Keywords:
Outcome assessment; Quality of life; Questionnaire; Trauma; Validation; Wounds and injuries
Authors: E J MacKenzie; J A Morris; G J Jurkovich; Y Yasui; B M Cushing; A R Burgess; B J DeLateur; M P McAndrew; M F Swiontkowski Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 9.308