Dataset Information

Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: protocol for an observational comparison study.

ABSTRACT: Despite their widespread use, the two main methods of assessing quality of life after surgery have never been directly compared. To support patient decision-making and study design, we aim to compare these two methods. The first of these methods is to assess quality of life before surgery and again after surgery using the same validated scale. The second is simply to ask patients whether or not they think their post-operative quality of life is better, worse, or the same. Our primary objective is to assess agreement between the two measures. Secondary objectives are to calculate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and to describe the variation across surgical specialties. To accomplish these aims, we will administer surveys to patients undergoing elective surgery, both before surgery and again 30 days after surgery. This protocol follows detailed guidelines for observational study protocols.

SUBMITTER: Kronzer VL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5017283 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: protocol for an observational comparison study.

Kronzer Vanessa L VL Jerry Michelle R MR Avidan Michael S MS

F1000Research 20160524

Despite their widespread use, the two main methods of assessing quality of life after surgery have never been directly compared. To support patient decision-making and study design, we aim to compare these two methods. The first of these methods is to assess quality of life before surgery and again after surgery using the same validated scale. The second is simply to ask patients whether or not they think their post-operative quality of life is better, worse, or the same. Our primary objective i ...[more]

PMID: 27635222

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh-frequency patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments are used to measure patients' symptoms after surgery for surgical research; however, the quality of those longitudinal PRO data has seldom been discussed.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine data quality-influencing factors and to profile error trajectories of data longitudinally collected via paper-and-pencil (P&P) or web-based assessment (electronic PRO [ePRO]) after thoracic surgery.MethodsWe extracted longitudinal PRO data with 678 patients scheduled for lung surgery from an observational study (n=512) and a randomized clinical trial (n=166) on the evaluation of different perioperative care strategies. PROs were assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Lung Cancer Module and single-item Quality of Life Scale before surgery and then daily after surgery until discharge or up to 14 days of hospitalization. Patient compliance and data error were identified and compared between P&P and ePRO. Generalized estimating equations model and 2-piecewise model were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors.ResultsAmong 678 patients, 629 with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P&P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.4% of patients had at least one error, including (1) missing items (64.69%, 1070/1654), (2) modifications without signatures (27.99%, 463/1654), (3) selection of multiple options (3.02%, 50/1654), (4) missing patient signatures (2.54%, 42/1654), (5) missing researcher signatures (1.45%, 24/1654), and (6) missing completion dates (0.30%, 5/1654). Patients who completed ePRO had fewer errors than those who completed P&P assessments (ePRO: 30.2% [57/189] vs. P&P: 57.7% [254/440]; P<.001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P&P were older, less educated, and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were a lower education level (P&P: odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.62; P<.001; ePRO: OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.72; P=.003), treated in a provincial hospital (P&P: OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.10-5.33; P<.001; ePRO: OR 4.73, 95% CI 2.18-10.25; P<.001), and with severe disease (P&P: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.99; P<.001; ePRO: OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.53-4.75; P<.001). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P&P, and on POD 2 for ePRO.ConclusionsIt is possible to improve data quality of longitudinally collected PRO through ePRO, compared with P&P. However, ePRO-related sampling bias needs to be considered when designing clinical research using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQOL), mood, and patient satisfaction in epilepsy surgery candidates before and 2 years after epilepsy surgery or presurgical investigation.MethodsIn this prospective study of 141 patients, 96 underwent surgery and 45 did not. Questionnaires at baseline and at 2-year follow-up included the generic 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD), and operated patients answered patient satisfaction questions. SF-36 scores were compared with scores from a matched sample from the Swedish norm population. Numbers were calculated of patients achieving a minimum important change (MIC) in the SF-36 Physical Composite Summary (PCS) and Mental Composite Summary (MCS).ResultsAt baseline, patients had significantly lower values than the norm on all SF-36 domains. At follow-up, operated patients were divided into seizure-free (International League Against Epilepsy [ILAE] class 1 and 2, n = 53) or with continued seizures (n = 43). No differences in baseline HAD or SF-36 values were found between these groups. Seizure-free patients reached the same levels as the norm in all SF-36 domains except Social Function. Operated patients with continued seizures and nonoperated patients had unchanged scores. Fifty-one percent of seizure-free patients had an improvement reaching MIC for PCS and 45% for MCS. Corresponding results for patients with continued seizures were 28% in PCS and 28% in MCS, for nonoperated 33% in PCS and 29% in MCS. HAD anxiety scores improved significantly in only the seizure-free patients. Of all operated patients, 80% were satisfied with having had surgery and 86% considered that they had benefited, whereas 20% thought that surgery caused some harm.SignificanceIn patients who were seizure-free after epilepsy surgery HRQOL normalized and anxiety decreased. Operated patients overwhelmingly considered epilepsy surgery to be beneficial. Nonetheless, only about half of the seizure-free patients achieved important HRQOL improvements, suggesting that seizure freedom does not in and of itself guarantee improved patient well-being. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

Dataset Information

Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: protocol for an observational comparison study.

Publications

Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: protocol for an observational comparison study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets