Quality of life after intensive care with the sickness impact profile
to validate the structure of the Sickness Impact Profile scale (SIP) when applied to intensive care patients after discharge from the hospital.
to explore the influence of age upon the various components of quality of life.
Patients admitted to 36 Dutch ICUs.
6247 patients out of 13000 consecutive admissions to the ICUs answered a SIP questionnaire 6 months after discharge from the hospital. The 3655 returned questionnaires were analyzed after aggregating the respondents into 6 age groups: from group 1: 17–29 up to group 4: >70 years of age.
Self-administration of SIP one year after discharge, measuring 5 independent categories (IC) and two dimensions: physical (PD) and psychosocial (PSD).
The total SIP-score oscillated between 5.8±8.2 (group I) and 10.5±9.5 (group 4). Group 3 had also a high score (9.4±11.2). Overall, the quality of life of patients was dominated by dysfunction on the categories composing the physical dimension, with exception of patients with ages between 30 and 50 years, in which dysfunction on the categories composing the psychosocial dimension was dominant. The structure of the SIP in the study was similar to that described to the original instrument.
The study validated the use of the SIP QOL-instrument on patients after intensive care. Age influenced consistently the various components of quality of life.
Key wordsIntensive care Quality of life Sickness impact profile Age
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Management of intensive care: guidelines for a better use of resources (1990). Reis Miranda D, Williams A, Loirat Ph (eds) Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- 2.Measuring Health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires (1987) McDowell I, Newell C (eds) Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Gilson BS, Morris JR (1981) The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805Google Scholar
- 4.Patrick DL, Danis M, Southerland LI, Hong G (1988) Quality of life following intensive care. J Gen Intern Med 3:218–223Google Scholar
- 5.Hulsebos RG, Beltman FW, Reis Miranda D, Spangenberg JFA (1991) Measuring quality of life with the sickness impact profile: a pilot study. Intensive Care Med 17:285–288Google Scholar
- 6.Reis Miranda D, Spangenberg JFA (1992) Quality, effectivity and organization of intensive care units in the Netherlands (Dutch language). Foundation for Research on Intensive Care in Europe, GroningenGoogle Scholar
- 7.Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) Apache II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829Google Scholar
- 8.Keene RK, Cullen DJ (1983) Therapeutic intervention scoring system: update 1983. Crit Care Med 11:1–3Google Scholar
- 9.Jacobs HM, Luttik A, Touw-Otten FWMM, De Melker RA (1990) De sickness impact profile; resultaten van een valideringsonderzoek van de Nederlandse versie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 134:1950–1954Google Scholar
- 10.Multivariate Data Analysis (1992) Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (eds) Maxwell Macmillan International Editors, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 11.Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW (1963) Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biologic and psychosocial function. JAMA 185: 914–919Google Scholar
- 12.Vazquez Mata G, Rivera Fernandez R, Carmona AG, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Torres Ruiz JM, Raya Pugnaire A, Aguayo de Hoyos E (1992) Factors related to quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 20:1257–1262Google Scholar