The body image disturbance questionnaire-scoliosis better correlates to quality of life measurements than the spinal assessment questionnaire in pediatric idiopathic scoliosis

Abstract

Purpose

Idiopathic scoliosis (IS) patients can have body dissatisfaction which can affect their perception of health. Two body image measures, the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Body Image Disturbance Questionnaire-Scoliosis (BIDQ-S), have been used in pediatric IS with variable correlation to the SRS-22r and radiographs, but have not been compared to each other. As patient reported outcomes (PROs) continue to be highlighted in large database studies and national hospital ranking system scoring, we should narrow use to the best and most efficient. We aim to determine which of two better correlates to pediatric IS patients’ radiographs and quality of life (QoL) scores.

Methods

Consecutive IS patients aged 10–19 years old without surgery prospectively completed BIDQ-S, SAQ, SRS-22r, and PedsQL self-reported outcome measures. BIDQ-S and SAQ were compared in correlation to the two QoL surveys, as well as to radiographic major curve, shoulder asymmetry, lateral upright ribcage offset at apex, and coronal/sagittal balance. Spearman’s r was used for correlations.

Results

104 surveys with mean age 14.4 years and mean major curve 42° (14°–74°) were included. BIDQ-S and SAQ scores strongly correlated to each other (r = 0.76), but BIDQ-S had a stronger correlation to total SRS-22r (− 0.75 vs − 0.61 SAQ), PedsQL total (− 0.76 vs − 0.55) and better or no difference in each SRS-22r and PedsQL domain. Both poorly correlated to radiographs (main curve: r = 0.32 BIDQ-S, 0.31 SAQ).

Conclusion

The BIDQ-S correlates better to SRS-22r and PedsQL for pediatric IS patients than the SAQ. Neither correlate well to radiographs.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Clayson D, Luz-Alterman S, Cataletto MM et al (1987) Long-term psychological sequelae of surgically versus nonsurgically treated scoliosis. Spine 12:983–986

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Payne WK, Ogilvie JW, Resnick MD et al (1997) Does scoliosis have a psychological impact and does gender make a difference? Spine 22:1380–1384

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Noonan KJ, Dolan LA, Jacobson WC et al (1997) Long-term psychosocial characteristics of patients treated for idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 17(6):712–717

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Danielsson AJ, Wiklund I, Pehrsson K et al (2001) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a matched follow-up at least 20 years after a brace or surgery. Eur Spine J 10:278–288

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Poitras B et al (1994) The Ste-Justine Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Cohort Study. Part II: perception of health, self and body image, and participation in physical activities. Spine 19(14):1562–1572

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Danielsson AJ (2007) What impact does spinal deformity correction for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis make on quality of life? Spine 32(19 Suppl):S101–S108

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    D’Andrea LP, Betz RR, Lenke LG et al (2000) Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine 25(14):1795–1802

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Poitras B et al (1994) Patient and parental perception of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis before and after surgery in comparison with surface and radiographic measurements. Spine 19:1562–1572

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Smith PL, Donaldson S, Hedden D et al (2006) Parents’ and patients’ perceptions of postoperative appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31(20):2367–2374

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lonner BS, Brochin R, Lewis R et al (2019) Body image disturbance improvement after operative correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 7(5):741–745

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cheshire J, Gardner A, Berryman F et al (2017) Do the SRS-22 self-image and mental health domain scores reflect the degree of asymmetry of the back in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Scoliosis Spinal Disord 12:37 (eCollection 2017)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brewer P, Berryman F, Baker D, Pynsent P, Gardner A (2013) Influence of Cobb angle and ISIS2 surface topography volumetric asymmetry on Scoliosis Research Society-22 outcome scores in scoliosis. Spine Deform 1(6):452–457

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sanders JO, Polly DW Jr, Cats-Baril W et al (2003) Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine 28:2158–2163

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Pineda S, Bago J, Climent JM (2006) Validity of the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale to measure subjective perception of spine deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 1:18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR et al (2007) The spinal appearance questionnaire: results of reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32(24):2719–2722

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Polly DW et al (2011) Spinal appearance questionnaire: factor analysis, scoring, reliability, and validity testing. Spine 36(18):E1240–E1244

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Auerbach JD, Lonner BS, Crerand CE et al (2014) Body image in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: validation of the Body Image Disturbance Questionnaire-Scoliosis Version. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96(8):e61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cash TF, Phillips KA, Santos MT et al (2004) Measuring “negative body image”: validation of the Body Image Disturbance Questionnaire in a nonclinical population. Body Image 1(4):363–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wetterkamp M, Thielsch MT, Gosheger G et al (2016) German validation of the BIDQ-S questionnaire on body image disturbance in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 26(2):309–315

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bao H, Yan P, Lonner B et al (2015) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the body image disturbance questionnaire-scoliosis. Spine 40(21):E1155–E1160

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2008) Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126(5):1763–8

  22. 22.

    Faul R, Erdfelder E, Buchner A et al (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M et al (2013) Discriminative properties of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire compared with the Spinal Research Society-22 Revised. Spine Deform 1(5):328–338

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Matamalas A, Bago J, D’Agata E, Pellise F (2014) Body image in idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison study of psychometric properties between four patient-reported outcome instruments. Health Qual Life Outcomes 12:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-81

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Thielsch MT, Wetterkamp M, Boertz P et al (2018) Reliability and validity of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS). J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):274

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rogala EJ, Drummond DS, Gurr J (1978) Scoliosis: incidence and natural history. A prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60(2):173–176

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM et al (1999) Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multi-center study of 244 patients. Spine 24:1435–1440

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton DC (2000) Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Outcomes Instrument. Spine 25:2381–2386

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D et al (2003) The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 28:63–69

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Glattes RC, Burton DC, Lai SM et al (2007) The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity. Spine 32(16):1778–1784

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D et al (2004) The influence of spine and trunk deformity on preoperative idiopathic scoliosis patients’ health-related quality of life questionnaire responses. Spine 29(8):861–868

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D et al (2003) Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28(1):74–78

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D et al (2003) Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 28(1):70–73

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Verma K, Lonner B, Hoashi JS et al (2010) Demographic factors affect Scoliosis Research Society-22 performance in healthy adolescents: a comparative baseline for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(24):2134–2139

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tones M, Moss N, Polly DW (2006) A review of quality of life and psychosocial issues in scoliosis. Spine 31:3027–3038

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Birdwell K, Shufflebarger H, Lenke L et al (2000) Parents’ and patients’ preferences and concerns in idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Spine 25:2392–2399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Parent EC, Wong D, Hill D et al (2010) The association between Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores and scoliosis severity changes at a clinically relevant threshold. Spine 35(3):315–322

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bagó J, Pérez-Grueso FJ, Les E et al (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18(12):1898–1904

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Koch KD, Buchanan R, Birch JG et al (2001) Adolescents undergoing surgery for idiopathic scoliosis: how physical and psychological characteristics relate to patient satisfaction with the cosmetic result. Spine 26:2119–2124

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Qiu X, Ma W, Li W et al (2009) Discrepancy between radiographic shoulder balance and cosmetic shoulder balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with double thoracic curve. Eur Spine J 18(1):45–51

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Toombs C, Lonner B, Shah S et al (2018) Quality of life improvement following surgery in adolescent spinal deformity patients: a comparison between Scheuermann Kyphosis and Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine Deform 6(6):676–683

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mulcahey MJ, Chafetz RS, Santangelo AM et al (2011) Cognitive testing of the spinal appearance questionnaire with typically developing youth and youth with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 31(6):661–667

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Bago J, Sanchez-Raya J, Perez-Grueso FJS et al (2010) The Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS): a new tool to evaluate subjective impression of trunk deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 5(1):6

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Bago J, Matamalas A, Sanchez-Raya J et al (2018) Responsiveness of image perception outcome scales after surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison between the trunk appearance perception scale (TAPS) and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine Deform 6(4):417–423

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Susan Lenander for her special assistance in PRO completion.

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer M. Bauer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics

This study is covered under approved IRB permission; exemption for consent.

Conflict of interest

None pertinent to this study; see declaration form.

Data

Available without HPI.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bauer, J.M. The body image disturbance questionnaire-scoliosis better correlates to quality of life measurements than the spinal assessment questionnaire in pediatric idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00358-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • BIDQ-s
  • SAQ
  • Body image
  • Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
  • Pediatric scoliosis
  • Scoliosis PRO