Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 2093–2102 | Cite as

Changes in quality of life after elective surgery: an observational study comparing two measures

  • Vanessa L. Kronzer
  • Michelle R. Jerry
  • Arbi Ben Abdallah
  • Troy S. Wildes
  • Sherry L. McKinnon
  • Anshuman Sharma
  • Michael S. AvidanEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Our main objective was to compare the change in a validated quality of life measure to a global assessment measure. The secondary objectives were to estimate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and to describe the change in quality of life by surgical specialty.

Methods

This prospective cohort study included 7902 adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Changes in the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), composed of a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS), were calculated using preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. The latter also contained a global assessment question for quality of life. We compared PCS and MCS to the global assessment using descriptive statistics and weighted kappa. MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach. Analyses were pre-specified and registered (NCT02771964).

Results

By the change in VR-12 scores, an equal proportion of patients experienced improvement and deterioration in quality of life (28% for PCS, 25% for MCS). In contrast, by the global assessment measure, 61% reported improvement, while only 10% reported deterioration. Agreement with the global assessment was slight for both PCS (kappa = 0.20, 57% matched) and MCS (kappa = 0.10, 54% matched). The MCID for the overall VR-12 score was approximately 2.5 points. Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery showed the most improvement in quality of life measures, while patients undergoing gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary or urologic surgery showed the most deterioration.

Conclusions

Subjective global quality of life report does not agree well with a validated quality of life instrument, perhaps due to patient over-optimism.

Keywords

Quality of life Outcome assessment Patient-reported outcomes Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) Elective surgical procedures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dawn Anderson, Marsha Fizette, Mark Foesterling, Stacey Hellman, Michelle Hieger, Mary Kehrer, Jill Lafata,Jessica McGowan, Angelika Nagele, Keryn Padgett, Mary Scherer, Tina Thomlison, Bonnie Vemmer, Linda Wiemer, Pathena Williams, Tammy Murphy, and Amy Campbell for their hard work in consenting patients for SATISFY-SOS.

Funding

VLK was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Grant UL1TR000448, subaward TL1TR000449]. MSA was supported by the National Institute on Aging [Grant 1UH2AG050312-01] and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation [Grant BJHF#7937-77]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH. The funding sources provided infrastructure and financial support but had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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 this study.

Supplementary material

11136_2017_1560_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (208 kb)
Baseline Questionnaire (PDF 208 KB)
11136_2017_1560_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (358 kb)
Follow-Up Questionnaire (PDF 357 KB)
11136_2017_1560_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
Proportion of patients experiencing change in mental quality of life, by global assessment response (PDF 8 KB)
11136_2017_1560_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
Proportion of patients experiencing change in overall quality of life, by global assessment response (PDF 8 KB)
11136_2017_1560_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (90 kb)
Inverse Probability Weighting Analysis (PDF 89 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Urbach, D. R. (2005). Measuring quality of life after surgery. Surgical Innovation, 12(2), 161–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lohr, K. N., & Zebrack, B. J. (2009). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Challenges and opportunities. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 99–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suk, K. S., Baek, J. H., Park, J. O., Kim, H. S., Lee, H. M., Kwon, J. W., et al. (2015). Postoperative quality of life in patients with progressive neuromuscular scoliosis and their parents. The Spine Journal, 15(3), 446–453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noyez, L. (2014). Is quality of life post cardiac surgery overestimated? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maillard, J., Elia, N., Haller, C. S., Delhumeau, C., & Walder, B. (2015). Preoperative and early postoperative quality of life after major surgery - a prospective observational study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., Schwarz, N., & Smith, D. (2005). Misimagining the unimaginable: The disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4 Suppl), S57–S62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Velanovich, V., Younga, J., Bhandarkar, V., Marshall, N., McLaren, P., Ritz, J., et al. (2012). A single, global patient-centered measure from the SF-36 instrument to assess surgical outcomes and quality of life: A pilot study. World Journal of Surgery, 36(9), 2045–2050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, D., Loewenstein, G., Jepson, C., Jankovich, A., Feldman, H., & Ubel, P. (2008). Mispredicting and misremembering: Patients with renal failure overestimate improvements in quality of life after a kidney transplant. Health Psychology, 27(5), 653–658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mather, M., Shafir, E., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misremembrance of options past: Source monitoring and choice. Psychological Science, 11(2), 132–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, D. M., Sherriff, R. L., Damschroder, L., Loewenstein, G., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients. Health Psychology, 25(6), 688–695.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mangione, C. M., Goldman, L., Orav, E. J., Marcantonio, E. R., Pedan, A., Ludwig, L. E., et al. (1997). Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(11), 686–697.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turel, M. K., Thakar, S., & Rajshekhar, V. (2015). Quality of life following surgery for large and giant vestibular schwannomas: A prospective study. Journal of Neurosurgery, 122(2), 303–311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carreon, L. Y., Bratcher, K. R., Canan, C. E., Burke, L. O., Djurasovic, M., & Glassman, S. D. (2013). Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 18(1), 102–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou, F., Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., Zhang, F., Pan, S., & Liu, Z. (2015). Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: A prospective cohort study. European Spine Journal, 24(12), 2918–2923.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2014). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 12(12), 1495–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Avidan, M. S. ([cited 2016 Feb 10]). Systematic Assessment and Targeted Improvement of Services Following Yearlong Surgical Outcomes Surveys (SATISFY-SOS). In: ClinicalTrials.gov.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kronzer, V. L., Jerry, M. R., & Avidan, M. S. (2016). Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: Protocol for an observational comparison study. F1000Research, 5, 976.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., Clark, J. A., et al. (2006). Applications of methodologies of the Veterans Health Study in the VA healthcare system: Conclusions and summary. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29(2), 182–188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kazis, L. E., Selim, A., Rogers, W., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., & Miller, D. R. (2006). Dissemination of methods and results from the veterans health study: Final comments and implications for future monitoring strategies within and outside the veterans healthcare system. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29(4), 310–319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., et al. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 43–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lamb, S. E., Jorstad-Stein, E. C., Hauer, K., & Becker, C. (2005). Development of a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials: The Prevention of Falls Network Europe consensus. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(9), 1618–1622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kronzer, V. L., Jerry, M. R., Ben Abdallah, A., Wildes, T. S., Stark, S. L., McKinnon, S. L., et al. (2016). Preoperative falls predict postoperative falls, functional decline, and surgical complications. EBioMedicine, 12, 302–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Buuren, S. (2007). Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16(3), 219–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. Measurement of interrater agreement: A SAS/IML Macro Kappa procedure for handling incomplete data. In Twenty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, April 11–14, 1999 (pp. 1620–1625).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, T. H., Marcantonio, E. R., Mangione, C. M., Thomas, E. J., Polanczyk, C. A., Cook, E. F., et al. (1999). Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation, 100(10), 1043–1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coteur, G., Feagan, B., Keininger, D. L., & Kosinski, M. (2009). Evaluation of the meaningfulness of health-related quality of life improvements as assessed by the SF-36 and the EQ-5D VAS in patients with active Crohn’s disease. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 29(9), 1032–1041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang, Y., Zhou, F., & Sun, Y. (2015). Assessment of health-related quality of life using the SF-36 in Chinese cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients after surgery and its consistency with neurological function assessment: A cohort study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bahler, C. D., & Sundaram, C. P. (2013). Quality of life following laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 17(2), 273–278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dawson, J., Doll, H., Coffey, J., & Jenkinson, C. (2007). Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 15(8), 918–931.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shi, H. Y., Lee, H. H., Chiu, C. C., Chiu, H. C., Uen, Y. H., & Lee, K. T. (2008). Responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences after cholecystectomy: GIQLI versus SF-36. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 12(7), 1275–1282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bilbao, A., Quintana, J. M., Escobar, A., Garcia, S., Andradas, E., Bare, M., et al. (2009). Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the VF-14 index, SF-36, and visual acuity in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Ophthalmology, 116(3), 418–424.e411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Helsten, D. L., Abdallah, A. B., Avidan, M. S., Wildes, T. S., Winter, A., McKinnon, S. L., et al. (2016). Methodological considerations for collecting patient reported outcomes from unselected surgical patients. Anesthesiology, 125(3), 495–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W. Jr., & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wright, A., Hannon, J., Hegedus, E. J., & Kavchak, A. E. (2012). Clinimetrics corner: A closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 20(3), 160–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiaWashington University School of MedicineSaint LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of MichiganCantonUSA

Personalised recommendations