Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 637–647 | Cite as

What matters most to sepsis survivors: a qualitative analysis to identify specific health-related quality of life domains

  • Christian König
  • Bastian Matt
  • Andreas Kortgen
  • Alison E. Turnbull
  • Christiane S. HartogEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

It is unknown how sepsis survivors conceptualize health-related quality of life (HRQL). We aimed to identify important HRQL domains for this population.

Methods

A literature search was performed to inform an interview guide. Open-ended interviews were held with 15 purposefully sampled sepsis survivors. Interview transcripts were analyzed by interpretative phenomenological analysis to allow themes to develop organically. Resulting codes were reviewed by an independent expert. The preliminary list of domains was rated in a two-round Delphi consensus procedure with therapists and survivors.

Results

Eleven domains emerged as critically important: Psychological impairment, Fatigue, Physical impairment, Coping with daily life, Return to normal living, Ability to walk, Cognitive impairment, Self-perception, Control over one’s life, Family support, and Delivery of health care. Sepsis survivors want a “normal life,” to walk again, and to regain control without cognitive impairment. Family support is essential to overcome sepsis aftermaths.

Conclusions

Survivors described many HRQL domains which are not captured by the QoL instruments that have traditionally been used to study ICU survivorship (i.e., SF-36 and EQ-5D). Future studies of QoL in ICU survivors should consider using both a traditional instrument so that results are comparable to previous research, as well as a more holistic QoL measurement instrument like the WHOQOL-BREF.

Keywords

Sepsis Health-related quality of life domains Qualitative research Patient-reported outcome 

Abbreviations

ARDS

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

EQ-5D

EuroQoL-5D

HRQL

Health-related quality of life

ICU

Intensive care unit

IPA

Interpretative phenomenological analysis

PROM

Patient-reported outcome measurement

RNL

Return to normal living

SF-36

Short Form 36 Health Survey

WHOQOL-BREF

Short version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL-100)

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all interview partners and experts who participated in the Delphi process. We thank the two student assistants.

Author contributions

CK and CSH planned the study and drafted the manuscript. CK conducted the study and gathered data. CK, BM, and CSH analyzed and interpreted the data. AET and AK revised the work for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published.

Funding

Christian König and Bastian Matt received a scholarship from the Center of Sepsis Control & Care (CSCC). The CSCC is supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01 E0 1002). Christiane S. Hartog was partly funded by the Mid-German Sepsis Cohort which receives funding from the CSCC and the Rudolf Presl GmbH, Kreischa. The funding source had no influence on study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Jena University Hospital (IRB No. 4392-04/15). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_2028_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (154 kb)
Online Resource 1 (PDF 153 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (84 kb)
Online Resource 2 (PDF 83 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (215 kb)
Online Resource 3 (PDF 214 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (145 kb)
Online Resource 4 (PDF 144 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (144 kb)
Online Resource 5 (PDF 144 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (142 kb)
Online Resource 6 (PDF 142 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (87 kb)
Online Resource 7 (PDF 86 KB)
11136_2018_2028_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (152 kb)
Online Resource 8 (PDF 152 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Fleischmann, C., Scherag, A., Adhikari, N. K., Hartog, C. S., Tsaganos, T., Schlattmann, P., et al. (2016). Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 193(3), 259–272.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prescott, H. C., & Angus, D. C. (2018). Enhancing recovery from sepsis: A review. JAMA, 319(1), 62–75.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.17687.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iwashyna, T. J., Ely, E. W., Smith, D. M., & Langa, K. M. (2010). Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors of severe sepsis. JAMA, 304(16), 1787–1794.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1553.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall, M. J., Williams, S. N., DeFrances, C. J., & Golosinskiy, A. (2011). Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: A challenge for patients and hospitals. NCHS Data Brief, 62, 1–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halpern, N. A., Goldman, D. A., Tan, K. S., & Pastores, S. M. (2016). Trends in critical care beds and use among population groups and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in the United States: 2000–2010. Critical Care Medicine, 44(8), 1490–1499.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001722.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seymour, C. W., Gesten, F., Prescott, H. C., Friedrich, M. E., Iwashyna, T. J., Phillips, G. S., et al. (2017). Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(23), 2235–2244.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1703058.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iwashyna, T. J. (2010). Survivorship will be the defining challenge of critical care in the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(3), 204–205.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angus, D. C., Carlet, J., & Brussels Roundtable, P. (2003). Surviving intensive care: A report from the 2002 Brussels Roundtable. Intensive Care Medicine, 29(3), 368–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-002-1624-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oeyen, S. G., Vandijck, D. M., Benoit, D. D., Annemans, L., & Decruyenaere, J. M. (2010). Quality of life after intensive care: A systematic review of the literature. Critical Care Medicine, 38(12), 2386–2400.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f3dec5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidt, K., Worrack, S., Von Korff, M., Davydow, D., Brunkhorst, F., Ehlert, U., et al. (2016). Effect of a primary care management intervention on mental health-related quality of life among survivors of sepsis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 315(24), 2703–2711.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.7207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turnbull, A. E., Rabiee, A., Davis, W. E., Nasser, M. F., Venna, V. R., Lolitha, R., et al. (2016). Outcome measurement in ICU survivorship research from 1970 to 2013: A scoping review of 425 publications. Critical Care Medicine, 44(7), 1267–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001651.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuthbertson, B. H., Elders, A., Hall, S., Taylor, J., MacLennan, G., Mackirdy, F., et al. (2013). Mortality and quality of life in the five years after severe sepsis. Critical Care, 17(2), R70.  https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12616.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Needham, D. M., Sepulveda, K. A., Dinglas, V. D., Chessare, C. M., Friedman, L. A., & Bingham, C. O., 3rd, et al. (2017). Core outcome measures for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors. An international modified Delphi consensus study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 196(9), 1122–1130,  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201702-0372OC.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carr, A. J., & Higginson, I. J. (2001). Are quality of life measures patient centred? BMJ, 322(7298), 1357–1360.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramsay, P. (2011). Health-related quality of life: Implications for critical care interventional studies and why we need to collaborate with patients. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 17(5), 510–514.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0b013e32834a4bd4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirkham, J. J., Gorst, S., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., et al. (2016). Core outcome Set-STAndards for reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Medicine, 13(10), e1002148.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims (2009). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
  20. 20.
    Hofhuis, J. G., van Stel, H. F., Schrijvers, A. J., Rommes, J. H., & Spronk, P. E. (2015). ICU survivors show no decline in health-related quality of life after 5 years. Intensive Care Medicine, 41(3), 495–504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3669-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research in Nursing & Health, 31(4), 391–398.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107–118.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104041110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology & Health, 11(2), 261–271.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449608400256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experience. Psychologist, 18(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05279903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kerr, C., Nixon, A., & Wild, D. (2010). Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(3), 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lim, W. C., Black, N., Lamping, D., Rowan, K., & Mays, N. (2016). Conceptualizing and measuring health-related quality of life in critical care. Journal of Critical Care, 31(1), 183–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.10.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singer, J. P., Chen, J., Katz, P. P., Blanc, P. D., Kagawa-Singer, M., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). Defining novel health-related quality of life domains in lung transplantation: A qualitative analysis. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1521–1533.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0875-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eakin, M. N., Patel, Y., Mendez-Tellez, P., Dinglas, V. D., Needham, D. M., & Turnbull, A. E. (2017). Patients’ outcomes after acute respiratory failure: A qualitative study with the PROMIS framework. American Journal of Critical Care, 26(6), 456–465.  https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2017834.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., O’Connell, K. A., & Group, W. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 299–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blackwood, B., Marshall, J., & Rose, L. (2015). Progress on core outcome sets for critical care research. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 21(5), 439–444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Turnbull, A. E., Sepulveda, K. A., Dinglas, V. D., Chessare, C. M., Bingham, C. O., 3rd, & Needham, D. M. (2017). Core domains for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors: An international modified Delphi consensus study. Critical Care Medicine, 45(6), 1001–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Needham, D. M., Dowdy, D. W., Mendez-Tellez, P. A., Herridge, M. S., & Pronovost, P. J. (2005). Studying outcomes of intensive care unit survivors: Measuring exposures and outcomes. Intensive Care Medicine, 31(9), 1153–1160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2656-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Czerwonka, A. I., Herridge, M. S., Chan, L., Chu, L. M., Matte, A., & Cameron, J. I. (2015). Changing support needs of survivors of complex critical illness and their family caregivers across the care continuum: A qualitative pilot study of Towards RECOVER. Journal of Critical Care, 30(2), 242–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.10.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lasch, K. E., Marquis, P., Vigneux, M., Abetz, L., Arnould, B., Bayliss, M., et al. (2010). PRO development: Rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Quality of Life Research, 19(8), 1087–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineJena University HospitalJenaGermany
  2. 2.Integrated Research and Treatment Center for Sepsis Control and Care (CSCC)Jena University HospitalJenaGermany
  3. 3.Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) GroupJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of MedicineJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations