Quality of Life Research

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 217–226 | Cite as

Recovered? Association between self-perceived recovery and the SF-36 after minor musculoskeletal injuries

  • Carin Ottosson
  • Hans Pettersson
  • Sven-Erik Johansson
  • Olof Nyrén
  • Sari Ponzer
Article

Abstract

Objective

Recovery after minor musculoskeletal injuries is often disproportionately protracted. Our aim was to relate Short Form-36 (SF-36), to self-perceived recovery assessed with the question” Do you feel recovered”. We hypothesized that restitution of physical factors would be reported at least as often as improvement of symptoms or impairments and that social and mental factors would dominate over physical as determinants for recovery. We followed 318 patients with minor traffic-related injuries for up to 6 months.

Results

For all SF-36 subscores more than 60% of the recovered patients had returned to their pre-injury levels. The subscores with the highest proportions (> 80%) were all mainly reflecting disability. For no subscore, however, was the proportion 100%. Normalizations in the SF-36 subscores for “Bodily Pain” (BP) (Odds Ratio, OR = 7.2), “Role limitations due to physical function” (OR = 5.3) were associated with self-perceived recovery.

Conclusion

Abolition of pain appears to be paramount for the self-perceived recovery, but it is neither a sufficient nor a necessary prerequisite. Contrary to our expectation, physical aspects of functional health status were more strongly associated with recovery than were emotional or social aspects.

Keywords

Functional health status Injury Musculoskeletal Recovery Traffic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish National Road Administration and AFA Research Foundation.

The authors are grateful to: Agnes Ek, RN, and Maja Holmberg, RN, who recruited the patients; Tina Levander, RN, who followed up the patients; and Anne Skoog, MD for her help with the study.

References

  1. 1.
    McClure RJ, Douglas RM (1996). The public health impact of minor injury. Accid Anal Prev 28:443–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mulder S, Meerding WJ, Van Beeck EF. (2002). Setting priorities in injury prevention: The application of an incidence based cost model. Inj Prev 8:74–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersson AL, Bunketorp O, Allebeck P. (1997). High rates of psychosocial complications after road traffic injuries. Injury 28:539–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayou R, Bryant B. (2002). Outcome 3 years after a road traffic accident. Psychol Med 32:671–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanchard EB, Hickling EJ, Taylor AE, Loos WR, Forneris CA, Jaccard J. (1996). Who develops PTSD from motor vehicle accidents?. Behav Res Ther 34:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ottosson C, Nyren O, Johansson SE, Ponzer S. (2005). Outcome after minor traffic accidents: A follow-up study of orthopedic patients in an inner-city area emergency room. J Trauma 58:553–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L, Frank JW and Bombardier C. (2001). A systematic review of the prognosis of acute whiplash and a new conceptual framework to synthesize the literature. Spine 26:E445–E458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brom D, Kleber RJ, Witztum E. (1992). The prevalence of posttraumatic psychopathology in the general and the clinical population. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 28:53–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dikmen SS, Temkin NR, Machamer JE, Holubkov AL, Fraser RT, Winn HR. (1994). Employment following traumatic head injuries. Arch Neurol 51:177–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holbrook TL, Anderson JP, Sieber WJ, Browner D, Hoyt DB. (1999). Outcome after major trauma: 12-month and 18-month follow-up results from the Trauma Recovery Project. J Trauma 46:765–771; discussion 771–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuch K, Cox BJ, Evans RJ. (1996). Posttraumatic stress disorder and motor vehicle accidents: A multidisciplinary overview. Can J Psychiatry 41:429–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacKenzie EJ, Shapiro S, Moody M, Siegel JH, Smith RT. (1986). Predicting posttrauma functional disability for individuals without severe brain injury. Med Care 24:377–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malt UF. (1998). Long-term outcome of motor vehicle accident injury [letter; comment]. Psychosom Med 60:386–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michaels AJ, Michaels CE, Moon CH, Zimmerman MA, Peterson C, Rodriguez JL. (1998). Psychosocial factors limit outcomes after trauma. J Trauma 44:644–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ponzer S, Bergman B, Brismar B, Johansson LM. (1996). A study of patient-related characteristics and outcome after moderate injury. Injury 27:549–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Sluis CK, Eisma WH, Groothoff JW, ten Duis HJ. (1998). Long-term physical, psychological and social consequences of severe injuries. Injury 29:281–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vingilis E, Larkin E, Stoduto G, Parkinson-Heyes A, McLellan B. (1996). Psychosocial sequelae of motor vehicle collisions: a follow-up study. Accid Anal Prev 28:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beaton DE, Tarasuk V, Katz JN, Wright JG, Bombardier C. (2001). Are you better? A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery. Arthritis Rheum 45:270–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sullivan, JK. SF-36 Hälsoenkät (Swedish manual and interpretation guide). Gothenburg: Health and care research unit, medical faculty, Sahlgrenska hospital, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beaton DE, Schemitsch E. Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 413: 90–105.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley, 2000. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics, ISSN 99-2228856-7.)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blanchard EB, Hickling EJ, Taylor AE, Buckley TC, Loos WR, Walsh J. (1998). Effects of litigation settlements on posttraumatic stress symptoms in motor vehicle accident victims. J Trauma Stress 11:337–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bryant RA, Harvey AG. (2003). The influence of litigation on maintenance of posttraumatic stress disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 191:191–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hendriks EJ, Scholten-Peeters GG, van der Windt DA, Neeleman-van der Steen CW, Oostendorp RA, Verhagen AP. (2005). Prognostic factors for poor recovery in acute whiplash patients. Pain 114:408–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watson WL, Ozanne-Smith J, Richardsons J. (2005). An evaluation of the assessment of quality of life utility instrument as a measure of the impact of injury on health-related quality of life. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 12:227–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carin Ottosson
    • 1
  • Hans Pettersson
    • 2
  • Sven-Erik Johansson
    • 3
  • Olof Nyrén
    • 4
  • Sari Ponzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsKarolinska Institutet at Stockholm Söder HospitalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsKarolinska Institutet at Stockholm Söder HospitalStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Family MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations