Advertisement

Patient-Centered Outcomes: Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life Assessment

  • Vic VelanovichEmail author
  • Vic Velanovich
Chapter

Abstract

Traditionally, to assess the value of an intervention, physicians have used objective, “physician-centered” outcome measures. These measures would include such endpoints as survival of cancer patients, recurrences after hernia repair, increased blood flow after vascular bypass, incidence of stroke after carotid artery surgery, and the like. Although such measures are valuable, they do not tell the whole story in the patient’s experience. In some respects, they are surrogates for the true endpoint – is the patient feeling better and can he or she function and enjoy life? It is this aspect of measuring patient-perceived functional improvements that the field of quality of life research developed (Testa and Simonson, N Engl J Med 334:835–40, 1996).

Keywords

Hernia Repair Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Life Instrument Mental Health Component Vascular Bypass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Selected Readings

  1. 1.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:835–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: A review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clin Trials. 2004;25:535–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Velanovich V. Using quality of life instruments to assess surgical outcomes. Surgery. 1999;126:1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Velanovich V. Using quality of life measurements in clinical practice. Surgery. 2007;141:127–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donaldson MS. Taking stock of health-related quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;33:155–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wright JG. Evaluating the outcome of treatment: Shouldn’t we be asking patients if they are better? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:549–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methological framework for assessing health indices. J Chron Dis. 1985;38:27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: Assessment, analysis, and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Velanovich V. Behavior and analysis of 36-item short-form health survey data for surgical quality of life research. Arch Surg. 2007;142:473–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chow A, Mayer EK, Darzi AW, Athanasiou T. Patient-reported outcome measures: The importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery. 2009;146:435–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryGeneral Surgery, Henry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations