Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery?

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee, L., Tran, T., Mayo, N. E., Carli, F., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). What does it really mean to “recover” from an operation? Surgery, 155(2), 211–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Neville, A., Lee, L., Antonescu, I., Mayo, N. E., Vassiliou, M. C., Fried, G. M., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 101(3), 159–171.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller, T. E., Thacker, J. K., White, W. D., Mantyh, C., Migaly, J., Jin, J., et al. (2014). Reduced length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 118(5), 1052–1061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ljungqvist, O., & Rasmussen, L. S. (2014). Recovery after anaesthesia and surgery. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 58(6), 639–641.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dowson, H. M., Cowie, A. S., Ballard, K., Gage, H., & Rockall, T. A. (2008). Systematic review of quality of life following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Colorectal Disease, 10(8), 757–768.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan, S., Wilson, T., Ahmed, J., Owais, A., & MacFie, J. (2010). Quality of life and patient satisfaction with enhanced recovery protocols. Colorectal Disease, 12(12), 1175–1182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartels, S. A., Vlug, M. S., Ubbink, D. T., & Bemelman, W. A. (2010). Quality of life after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: A systematic review. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 16(40), 5035–5041.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stucki, G., Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Ustun, T. B. (2002). Application of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(5), 281–282.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weigl, M., Cieza, A., Harder, M., Geyh, S., Amann, E., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2003). Linking osteoarthritis-specific health-status measures to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 11(7), 519–523.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Kollerits, B., Grimby, G., & Stucki, G. (2007). Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 833–851.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tschiesner, U., Rogers, S. N., Harreus, U., Berghaus, A., & Cieza, A. (2008). 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. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 265(6), 627–637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustun, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Spitzer, W. O., Dobson, A. J., Hall, J., Chesterman, E., Levi, J., Shepherd, R., et al. (1981). Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: A concise QL-index for use by physicians. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 34(12), 585–597.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Myles, P. S., Hunt, J. O., Nightingale, C. E., Fletcher, H., Beh, T., Tanil, D., et al. (1999). Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 88(1), 83–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fazio, V. W., O’Riordain, M. G., Lavery, I. C., Church, J. M., Lau, P., Strong, S. A., & Hull, T. (1999). Long-term functional outcome and quality of life after stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Annals of Surgery, 230(4), 575–584.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eypasch, E., Williams, J. I., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Ure, B. M., Schmulling, C., Neugebauer, E., & Troidl, H. (1995). Gastrointestinal quality of life index: Development, validation and application of a new instrument. British Journal of Surgery, 82(2), 216–222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paddison, J. S., Sammour, T., Kahokehr, A., Zargar-Shoshtari, K., & Hill, A. G. (2011). Development and validation of the surgical recovery scale (SRS). Journal of Surgical Research, 167(2), e85–e91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P. A. (2004). Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery, 240(2), 205–213.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Leidy, N. K., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). 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. Value Health, 12(8), 1075–1083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee, L., Elfassy, N., Li, C., Latimer, E., Liberman, A. S., Charlebois, P., et al. (2013). Valuing postoperative recovery: Validation of the SF-6D health-state utility. Journal of Surgical Research, 184(1), 108–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Urbach, D. R., Harnish, J. L., & Long, G. (2005). Short-term health-related quality of life after abdominal surgery: A conceptual framework. Surgical Innovation, 12(3), 243–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Allvin, R., Berg, K., Idvall, E., & Nilsson, U. (2007). Postoperative recovery: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(5), 552–558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mayo, N. E., Moriello, C., Asano, M., van der Spuy, S., & Finch, L. (2011). The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function. Quality of Life Research, 20(5), 621–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kluivers, K. B., Riphagen, I., Vierhout, M. E., Brolmann, H. A., & de Vet, H. C. (2008). Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments. Surgery, 143(2), 206–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry—Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2013.

  34. Lee, L., Mata, J., Augustin, B. R., Carli, F., Morin, N., Latimer, E., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery. Journal of Surgical Research, 190(1), 79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hobart, J. C., Cano, S. J., Zajicek, J. P., & Thompson, A. J. (2007). Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: Problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurology, 6(12), 1094–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

LL is supported by the Quebec Health Sciences Research Fund (FRQS) and the Fast Foundation.

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650 Cedar Ave, E19-125, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada

    Lawrence Lee, Teodora Dumitra, Julio F. Fiore Jr. & Liane S. Feldman

  2. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Julio F. Fiore Jr. & Nancy E. Mayo

Authors
  1. Lawrence Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teodora Dumitra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julio F. Fiore Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nancy E. Mayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liane S. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, L., Dumitra, T., Fiore, J.F. et al. How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery?. Qual Life Res 24, 2583–2590 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1008-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1008-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation