Article

Guidelines for the conduction of follow-up studies measuring injury-related disability.

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.96). 03/2007; 62(2):534-50. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31802e70c7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Scientific knowledge on functional outcome after injury is limited. During the past decade, a variety of measures have been used at various moments in different study populations. Guidelines are needed to increase comparability between studies.
A working group of the European Consumer Safety Association conducted a literature review of empirical studies into injury-related disability (1995-2005). We included injury from all levels of severity and selected studies using generic health status measures with both short-term and long-term follow up. The results were used as input for a consensus procedure toward the development of guidelines for defining the study populations, selecting the health status measures, selecting the timings of the assessments, and data collection procedures.
The group reached consensus on a common core of health status measures and assessment moments. The group advises to use a combination of EuroQol-5D and Health Utilities Mark III in all studies on injury-related disability. This combination covers all relevant health domains, is applicable in all kinds of injury populations and in widely different age ranges, provides a link with utility scores, and has several practical advantages (e.g., brevity, availability in different languages). For specific types of injury, the common core may be supplemented by injury-specific measures. The group advises a common core of assessments at 1, 2, 4, and 12 months after injury.
Our guidelines should be tested and may lead to improved and more consistent epidemiologic data on the incidence, severity, and duration of injury-related disability.

0 Followers
 · 
138 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) is essential to quantify the subjective burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in survivors. We performed a systematic review of HRQL studies in TBI to evaluate study design, instruments used, methodological quality, and outcome. Fifty-eight studies were included, showing large variation in HRQL instruments and assessment time points used. The Short Form-36 (SF-36) was most frequently used. A high prevalence of health problems during and after the first year of TBI was a common finding of the studies included. In the long term, patients with a TBI still showed large deficits from full recovery compared to population norms. Positive results for internal consistency and interpretability of the SF-36 were reported in validity studies. The Quality of Life after Brain Injury instrument (QOLIBRI), European Brain Injury Questionnaire (EBIQ), Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life short version (WHOQOL-BREF) showed positive results, but evidence was limited. Meta-analysis of SF-36 showed that TBI outcome is heterogeneous, encompassing a broad spectrum of HRQL, with most problems reported in the physical, emotional, and social functioning domain. The use of SF-36 in combination with a TBI-specific instrument, i.e., QOLIBRI, seems promising. Consensus on preferred methodologies of HRQL measurement in TBI would facilitate comparability across studies, resulting in improved insights in recovery patterns and better estimates of the burden of TBI. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12963-015-0037-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    Population Health Metrics 12/2015; 13(1):4. DOI:10.1186/s12963-015-0037-1 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine associations between the number of injuries sustained and three measures of disability 12-months post-injury for hospitalised patients. Data from 27,840 adult (18+ years) participants, hospitalised for injury, were extracted for analysis from the Validating and Improving injury Burden Estimates (Injury-VIBES) Study. Modified Poisson and linear regression analyses were used to estimate relative risks and mean differences, respectively, for a range of outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended, GOS-E; EQ-5D and 12-item Short Form health survey physical and mental component summary scores, PCS-12 and MCS-12) according to the number of injuries sustained, adjusted for age, sex and contributing study. More than half (54%) of patients had an injury to more than one ICD-10 body region and 62% had sustained more than one Global Burden of Disease injury type. The adjusted relative risk of a poor functional recovery (GOS-E<7) and of reporting problems on each of the items of the EQ-5D increased by 5-10% for each additional injury type, or body region, injured. Adjusted mean PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores worsened with each additional injury type, or body region, injured by 1.3-1.5 points and 0.5 points, respectively. Consistent and strong relationships exist between the number of injury types and body regions injured and 12-month functional and health status outcomes. Existing composite measures of anatomical injury severity such as the NISS or ISS, which use up to three diagnoses only, may be insufficient for characterising or accounting for multiple injuries in disability studies. Future studies should consider the impact of multiple injuries to avoid under-estimation of injury burden.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e113467. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0113467 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The purpose of this study was to determine the construct validity of the PedsQL¿ health related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument for use among injured children and to examine the impact of using different modes of administration, including paper and pencil, online and telephone.Methods Two hundred thirty-three participants (aged 0 ¿ 16) were recruited from hospital wards and the emergency department of a pediatric hospital in a large urban center in British Columbia, Canada. Data used to evaluate the construct validity of the PedsQL¿ were collected from participants at the time of seeking injury treatment (baseline) to capture a retrospective measure of pre injury health, and one month post injury. Data used to compare different modes of administration (n¿=¿44) were collected at baseline. To assess construct validity repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) was used to determine whether the PedsQL¿ tool was able to discriminate between patients pre and post injury while investigating possible interaction by category of length of stay in hospital. The impact of different modalities of administering the PedsQL¿ on item responses was investigated using Bland-Altman plots.ResultsrANOVA showed significant differences in PedsQL¿ total score between baseline and one month post injury (p¿<¿.001), and differences in mean total score at one month post injury by category of injury severity (p¿<¿.001). There was also significant interaction by category of injury severity for the change in PedsQL¿ total score from baseline to one month (p¿<¿.001). Pearson¿s correlations were highly significant across three modalities of survey administration: paper and pencil, computer and telephone administration (range: .92 to .97, p¿<¿.001). Bland-Altman plots showed strong consistency.Conclusion The PedsQL¿ instrument is able to discriminate between pre and post injury HRQoL, as well as HRQoL post injury for injuries of varying severity. These findings are an indication that this instrument has good construct validity for the purpose of evaluating HRQoL of injured children. Data collected via paper-pencil, online and telephone administration were highly consistent. This is important as depending on the setting, clinical or research, different modalities of completing this instrument may be more appropriate.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 11/2014; 12(1):168. DOI:10.1186/s12955-014-0168-2 · 2.10 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
193 Downloads
Available from
May 19, 2014