Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-reported outcomes. How important are they?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Outcome after surgical treatment has been based predominantly on objective criteria (biomedical model) and has largely ignored, until recently, the expectations, personal feelings, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients (outcomes model). The importance of this derives from considerations that the viewpoints and priorities of patients may not be the same as those of their surgeons. Furthermore, there is often little correlation between symptom severity and disease severity. Measures of quality of life and patient satisfaction are, thus, important in valid assessment of the results of surgical treatment. Global assessment based on both the biomedical and outcomes models constitutes the ideal.

Questionnaires designed to measure both quality life (generic and specific) and patient satisfaction with treatment require careful development and validation by appropriate studies.

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. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Fletchner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JCJM, Kaasa S, Klee M, Osoba D, Razavi D, Rofe PB, Schraub S, Sneeus K, Sullivan M, Takeda F (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. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bammer T, Freeman M, Shabriari A, Hinder RA, DeVault KR, Achem SR (2002) Outcome of laparoscopic antireflux surgery in patients with nonerosive reflux disease. J Gastointest Surg 6:730–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berzon RA, Hays RD, Shumaker SA (1993) International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life instruments. Qual Life Res 2:367–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570–579

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Coyne KS, Wiklund I, Schmier J, Halling K, Defl;innocenti A, Revicki D (2003) Development and validation of a disease-specific treatment satisfaction questionnaire for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18:907–915

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dupuy HJ (1984) The psychological General Well-being (PSGWB) index. In Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CF, Elinson J, editors, Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Le Jacq Publishers, pp 170–184

  7. Fokter SK, Yerby SA (2005) Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 21:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guyatt G, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten S, Feeny D, Patrick DL (1989) Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. Can Med Assoc J 140:1441–1448

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayden JD, Myers JC, Jamieson GG (2005) Illness behavior and laparoscopic antireflux surgery: tailoring the wrap to suit the patient. Dis Esophagus 18:378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzer B, Gyasi A, Schiessel R, Rosen HR (2006) Patients’ expectations of colorectal surgery for cancer. Colorect Dis 8:186–191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hudak PL, Wright JG (2000) The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 25:3167–3177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kamolz T, Pointer R (2002) Expectations of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease for the outcome of laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:389–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan RM (2002) Quality of life: an outcomes perspective. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(Suppl 2):S44–S50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinée S, Abbou CC, Eypasch E, Garcia Caballero M, Lumsden MA, Millat B, Monson JRT, Nilsson G, Pointner R, Schwenk W, Shamiyeh A, Szold A, Taragona E, Ure B, Neugebauer E (2004) Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery. Evidence-based guidelines of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 18:879–897

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kravitz RL (1996) Patients’ expectations for medical care: an expanded formulation based on review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 53:3–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Landgraf JM, Abetz L, Ware JE (1996) The Child Health Questionnaire: a user’s manual. Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. Linder-Pelz S (1982) Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 16:577–582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Locker D, Dunt D (1978) Theoretical and methodological issues in sociological studies of consumer satisfaction with medical care. Soc Sci Med 12:283–292

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McColl E (2004) Best practice in symptom assessment: a review. Gut 53(Suppl IV):IV49–IV54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Melton GB, Lillemoe KD, Cameron JL, Sauter PA, Coleman J, Yeo CJ (2002) Major bile duct injuries associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effect of surgical repair on quality of life. Ann Surg 235:888–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nigthingale CE, Fletcher H, Tanil D, Nagy A, Rubinstein A, Ponsford JL (1999) Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in Adults. Anesth Analg 88:83–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nano MT, Gill PG, Kollias J, Bochner MA, Malycha P, Winefie HR (2005) Psychological impact and cosmetic outcome of surgical breast cancer strategies. Aust N Z J Surg 75:940–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Patrick DL (2003) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): an organizing tool for concepts, measures and applications. Qual of Life Newsletter 31:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  24. Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, Pesa J, (2003) Measuring satisfaction with migraine treatment: expectations, importance, outcomes and global ratings. Clin Ther 25:2920–2935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pettersen KI, Veenstra M, Guldvog B, Kolstad A (2004) The Patient Experiences Questionnaire: development, validity and reliability. Int J Qual Health Care 16:453–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pope CE II (1992) The quality of life following antireflux surgery. World J Surg 16:355–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Price DD, Harkins SW, Baker C (1987). Sensory-affective relationships among different types of clinical and experimental pain. Pain 28:297–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Recart A, Duchene D, White PF, Thomas T, Johnosn DB, Cadeddu JA (2005) Efficacy and safety of fast-track recovery strategy for patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Endourol 19:1165–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Revicki DA (2004) Patient assessment of treatment satisfaction: methods and practical issues. GUT 53(Suppl IV):IV40–IV44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavratonis C, Thorson AG, Wexner SD, Bliss D, Lowry AC (2000) Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43:9–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Shi G, Tatum RP, Joehl RJ, Kahrilas PJ (1999) Esophageal sensitivity and symptom perception in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 1:214–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sitzia J (1999) How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J Qual Health Care 11:319–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Stein HJ, Feussner H, Siewert JR (1998) Antireflux surgery: a current comparison of open and laparoscopic approaches. Hepatogastroenterology 45:1328–3337

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tahzib NG, Bootsma SJ, Eggink FA, Nabar VA, Nuijts RM (2005) Functional outcomes and patient satisfaction after laser in situ keratomileusis for correction of myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1943–1951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Talley NJ, Fullerton S, Junghard O, Wiklund I (2001) Quality of life in patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn: reliability and sensitivity of disease-specific instruments. Am J Gastroenterol 96:1998–2004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tarlov AR, Ware JEJ, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M (1989) The medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. J Am Med Assoc 262:925–930

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Velanovich V, Karmy-Jones R (1998) Measuring gastroesophageal reflux disease: relationship between health-related quality of life scores and physiologic-parameters. Am Surg 64:649–653

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL (1978) The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction. Health Med Care Serv Rev 1:1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Watson DI, Foreman D, Devitt PG (1997) Preoperative endoscopic grading of esophagitis versus outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Am J Gastroenterol 92:222–225

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Weaver M, Patrick DL, Markson PD, Martin D, Frederic I, Berger M (1997) Issues in the measurement of treatment satisfaction. Am J Manag Care 3:579–594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wood-Dauphinée S, Korolija D (2006) Symptoms, health-related quality-of-life and patient satisfaction: using these patient-reported outcomes in people with gastroesophageal reflux disease. In Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Pointner R, (eds) Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Principles of Disease, Diagnosis and Treatment, Springer, Wien, New York, pp 269–285

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wyrwich KW, Staebler Tardino VM (2004) A blueprint for symptom scales and responses: measurement and reporting. Gut 53 (Suppl IV):IV45–IV48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Surgical Clinic, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, Kispaticeva 12, 1000, Zagreb, Croatia

    D. Korolija

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, 3630 Promenade Sir-William-Osler, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1Y5, Canada

    S. Wood-Dauphinee

  3. Department of General Surgery, Zell am See Hospital, A 5700, Zell am See, Austria

    R. Pointner

Authors
  1. D. Korolija
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Wood-Dauphinee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Pointner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Korolija.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Korolija, D., Wood-Dauphinee, S. & Pointner, R. Patient-reported outcomes. How important are they?. Surg Endosc 21, 503–507 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9255-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9255-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation