A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery

A Content Framework of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Detecting Early Adverse Events After Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Systematic health monitoring with patient-reported outcome instruments may predict post-discharge complications after major surgery. The objective of this study was to conceptualize a novel patient-reported outcome instrument for detecting early adverse events within two weeks of discharge after major emergency abdominal surgery and colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This study was conducted in two phases. (1) An exhaustive health concept pool was generated using systematic content analysis of existing patient-reported outcome measures (N = 31) and semi-structured interviews of readmitted patients (N = 49) and health professionals (N = 10). Concepts were categorized into three major domains: 'Symptoms,' 'functional status,' and 'general health perception.' We calculated the frequency of each health concept as the proportion of patients, who experienced the respective concept prior to readmission. (2) Colorectal cancer surgeons (N = 13) and emergency general surgeons (N = 12) rated the relevance of each health concept (1 = irrelevant, 5 = very relevant) in the context of detecting post-discharge adverse events. We selected concepts with either a high mean relevance score (≥ 4) or a combination of moderate mean relevance score and high patient-reported frequency (≥ 3 and ≥ 20% or ≥ 2.5 and ≥ 50%, respectively).

RESULTS

Content analysis of existing items with additions from patients and experts resulted in 58 health concepts, of which the majority were distinct symptoms (N = 40). The selection procedure resulted in 29 patient-reported health concepts relevant for detecting adverse events after discharge.

CONCLUSION

The outlined framework provides content validity for future patient-reported outcome instruments detecting adverse events in the early post-discharge period after major emergency abdominal surgery and colorectal cancer surgery.

Measurement Properties of the EQ VAS Around the Globe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to synthesize and evaluate published evidence on the measurement properties of the EQ VAS, a component of all EQ-5D questionnaires.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched for EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L validation articles published from January 1, 2009, to November 5, 2019. Evidence for construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness was extracted from individual studies before being aggregated for evaluation of the populations represented by the studied samples. Multivariable logistic meta-regression was conducted to explore the effects of potential covariates on construct validity.

RESULTS

A total of 50 articles containing 488 studies, using samples drawn from 12 different populations, were identified. Generally, the quality of evidence was high for construct validity studies (n = 397) but only moderate for both test-retest reliability studies (n = 21) and responsiveness studies (n = 70). "Sufficient" construct validity of EQ VAS was found in 8 of 12 populations, "sufficient" test-retest reliability was found in 3 of 11 populations, and "sufficient" responsiveness was found in 5 of 12 populations. Meta-regression analyses suggested that construct validity studies from the Asian-Pacific region were more likely to show a negative rating compared with studies from Europe and North America.

CONCLUSION

The EQ VAS exhibits "sufficient" construct validity, "inconsistent" test-retest reliability, and "inconsistent" responsiveness across a broad range of populations. Additional studies are needed to explore the suboptimal validity of the EQ VAS in the Asian-Pacific region, whereas more high-quality validation studies are needed to assess its reliability and responsiveness.

Health-related quality of life of patients with colorectal neoplasms in China: A multicenter cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to clarify health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with colorectal precancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in China and to better understand related utility scores.

METHODS

A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in precancer and CRC patients from 2012 to 2014, covering 12 provinces in China. HRQoL was assessed with EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels. Utility scores were derived using Chinese value set. A multivariate regression model was established to explore potential predictors of utility scores.

RESULTS

A total of 376 precancer (mean age 58.7 years, 61.2% men) and 2470 CRC patients (mean age 58.6 years, 57.6% men) were included. In five dimensions, there was a certain percentage of problem reported among precancer (range: 12.0% to 36.7%) and CRC (range: 32.4% to 50.3%) patients, with pain/discomfort being the most serious dimension. Utility scores of precancer and CRC patients were 0.870 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.855-0.886) and 0.751 (95% CI, 0.742-0.759), both of which were lower than those of general Chinese population (0.960 [95% CI, 0.960-0.960]). Utilities for patients at stage I to stage IV were 0.742 (95% CI, 0.715-0.769), 0.722 (95% CI, 0.705-0.740), 0.756 (95% CI, 0.741-0.772), and 0.745 (95% CI, 0.742-0.767), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that therapeutic regimen, time point of the interview, education, occupation, annual household income, and geographic region were associated with utilities of CRC patients.

CONCLUSION

Health-related quality of life of both precancer and CRC patients in China declined considerably. Utility scores differed by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and findings of these utilities may facilitate implementation of further cost-utility evaluations.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Patient-Reported Outcomes in an Enhanced Recovery Pathway

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of health status that come directly from the patient. PROs are an underutilized tool in the perioperative setting. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have primarily focused on traditional measures of health care quality such as complications and hospital length of stay. These measures do not capture postdischarge outcomes that are meaningful to patients such as function or freedom from disability. PROs can be used to facilitate shared decisions between patients and providers before surgery and establish benchmark recovery goals after surgery. PROs can also be utilized in quality improvement initiatives and clinical research studies. An expert panel, the Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) workgroup, conducted an extensive literature review to determine best practices for the incorporation of PROs in an ERP. This international group of experienced clinicians from North America and Europe met at Stony Brook, NY, on December 2-3, 2016, to review the evidence supporting the use of PROs in the context of surgical recovery. A modified Delphi method was used to capture the collective expertise of a diverse group to answer clinical questions. During 3 plenary sessions, the POQI PRO subgroup presented clinical questions based on a literature review, presented evidenced-based answers to those questions, and developed recommendations which represented a consensus opinion regarding the use of PROs in the context of an ERP. The POQI workgroup identified key criteria to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for their incorporation in an ERP. The POQI workgroup agreed on the following recommendations: (1) PROMs in the perioperative setting should be collected in the framework of physical, mental, and social domains. (2) These data should be collected preoperatively at baseline, during the immediate postoperative time period, and after hospital discharge. (3) In the immediate postoperative setting, we recommend using the Quality of Recovery-15 score. After discharge at 30 and 90 days, we recommend the use of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, or a tailored use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. (4) Future study that consistently applies PROMs in an ERP will define the role these measures will have evaluating quality and guiding clinical care. Consensus guidelines regarding the incorporation of PRO measures in an ERP were created by the POQI workgroup. The inclusion of PROMs with traditional measures of health care quality after surgery provides an opportunity to improve clinical care.

Construct Validity and Responsiveness of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale in the Context of Recovery After Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale is a patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates quality of life after abdominal surgery. Evidence supporting its measurement properties is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to contribute evidence for the construct validity and responsiveness of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale as a measure of recovery after colorectal surgery in the context of an enhanced recovery pathway.

DESIGN

This is an observational validation study designed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Included were 100 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery (mean age, 65; 57% male).

INTERVENTION

There were no interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Construct validity was assessed at 2 days and 2 and 4 weeks after surgery by testing the hypotheses that Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale scores were higher 1) in patients without vs with postoperative complications, 2) with higher preoperative physical status vs lower, 3) without vs with postoperative stoma, 4) in men vs women, 5) with shorter time to readiness for discharge (≤4 days) vs longer, and 6) with shorter length of stay (≤4 days) vs longer. To test responsiveness, we hypothesized that scores would be higher 1) preoperatively vs 2 days postoperatively, 2) at 2 weeks vs 2 days postoperatively, and 3) at 4 weeks vs 2 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

The data supported 3 of the 6 hypotheses (hypotheses 1, 5, and 6) tested for construct validity at all time points. Two of the 3 hypotheses tested for responsiveness (hypotheses 1 and 2) were supported.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the risk of selection bias due to the use of secondary data from a randomized controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale was responsive to the expected trajectory of recovery up to 2 weeks after surgery, but did not discriminate between all groups expected to have different recovery trajectories. There remains a need for the development of recovery-specific, patient-reported outcome measures with adequate measurement properties. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A814.

Evaluation of the quality of recovery and the postoperative health status after elective surgery

Purpose

Postoperative recovery is a complex process with physiologic, functional, and psychologic dimensions. Postoperative quality of recovery is considered as a crucial outcome following surgery and anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the quality of postoperative recovery and health status before and after surgery, in patients undergoing elective surgery.

Methods

This observational, prospective study was conducted on patients proposed for elective surgery. Evaluation of postoperative recovery was performed using the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale and health status was assessed by applying the EuroQol assessing problems in five dimensions: mobility, personal care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Poor quality of recovery was defined as recovery in fewer than two domains at postoperative Day 1 in the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale.

Results

Before surgery (D0), patients with poor quality of recovery had median Visual Analog Scale scores in EuroQol similar to those of patients without poor quality of recovery, but they had more problems in the mobility, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression dimensions. At 3 months after surgery, patients with poor quality of recovery had median Visual Analog Scale scores in EuroQol similar to those of patients without poor quality of recovery, but they maintained more problems in the pain/discomfort dimension. Patients with poor quality of recovery scored significantly higher on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scale at baseline, although the results were similar at 3 months.

Conclusions

Patients with poor quality of recovery had the worst health status at D0. Evaluation at 3 months indicated similar rates of problems in EuroQol (except for pain/discomfort) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scores were similar.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery and Its Effects on Patient Reported Outcomes

Enhanced recovery programs were developed as a means for improving patient recovery after surgery with a multifaceted approach including several interventions in the perioperative period. There is now sufficient evidence in the literature that enhanced recovery programs have actually shortened hospital length of stay after colorectal surgery. Nonetheless, the impact of these successful programs on patient-reported outcomes like functional recovery and return to baseline quality of life is not known.

[Evaluation of the quality of recovery and the postoperative health status after elective surgery]

PURPOSE

Postoperative recovery is a complex process with physiologic, functional, and psychologic dimensions. Postoperative quality of recovery is considered as a crucial outcome following surgery and anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the quality of postoperative recovery and health status before and after surgery, in patients undergoing elective surgery.

METHODS

This observational, prospective study was conducted on patients proposed for elective surgery. Evaluation of postoperative recovery was performed using the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale and health status was assessed by applying the EuroQol assessing problems in five dimensions: mobility, personal care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Poor quality of recovery was defined as recovery in fewer than two domains at postoperative Day 1 in the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale.

RESULTS

Before surgery (D0), patients with poor quality of recovery had median Visual Analog Scale scores in EuroQol similar to those of patients without poor quality of recovery, but they had more problems in the mobility, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression dimensions. At 3 months after surgery, patients with poor quality of recovery had median Visual Analog Scale scores in EuroQol similar to those of patients without poor quality of recovery, but they maintained more problems in the pain/discomfort dimension. Patients with poor quality of recovery scored significantly higher on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scale at baseline, although the results were similar at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with poor quality of recovery had the worst health status at D0. Evaluation at 3 months indicated similar rates of problems in EuroQol (except for pain/discomfort) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scores were similar.

Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery Versus Conventional Perioperative Management for Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) versus conventional care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

ERPs for colorectal surgery are clinically effective, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown.

METHODS

A multi-institutional prospective cohort cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at 2 university-affiliated institutions from October 2012 to October 2013 were enrolled. One center used an ERP, whereas the other did not. Postoperative outcomes were recorded up to 60 days. Total costs were reported in 2013 Canadian dollars. Effectiveness was measured using the SF-6D, a health utility measure validated for postoperative recovery. Uncertainty was expressed using bootstrapped estimates (10,000 repetitions).

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients were included (conventional care: n = 95; ERP: n = 95). There were no differences in patient characteristics except for a higher proportion of laparoscopy in the ERP group. Mean length of stay was shorter in the ERP group (6.5 vs 9.8 days; P = 0.017), but there were no differences in complications or readmissions. Patients in the ERP group returned to work quicker and had less caregiver burden. There was no difference in quality of life between the 2 groups. The cost of the ERP program was $153 per patient. Overall societal costs were lower in the ERP group (mean difference = -2985; 95% confidence interval, -5753 to -373). The ERP had a greater than 99% probability of cost-effectiveness. The results were insensitive to a range of assumptions and subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery is cost-effective compared with conventional perioperative management for elective colorectal resection.

Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The EQ-5D is one of the most frequently used, generic, preference-based instruments for measuring the health utilities of patients in economic evaluations. It is recommended for health technology assessment by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Because the EQ-5D plays such an important role in economic evaluations, useful information on its responsiveness to detect meaningful change in health status is required.

OBJECTIVE

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence on the responsiveness of the EQ-5D to detect meaningful change in health status for clinical research and economic evaluations.

METHODS

We searched the EuroQol website, PubMed, PsychINFO, and EconLit databases to identify studies published in English from the inception of the EQ-5D until August 15, 2014 using keywords that were related to responsiveness. Studies that used only the EQ-VAS were excluded from the final analysis. Narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize evidence on the responsiveness of the EQ-5D by conditions or physiological functions.

RESULTS

Of 1401 studies, 145 were included in the narrative synthesis and categorized into 19 categories for 56 conditions. The EQ-5D was found to be responsive in 25 conditions (45 %) with the magnitude of responsiveness varying from small to large depending on the condition. There was mixed evidence of responsiveness in 27 conditions (48 %). Only four conditions (7 %) (i.e., alcohol dependency, schizophrenia, limb reconstruction, and hearing impairment) were identified where the EQ-5D was not responsive.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-5D is an appropriate measure for economic evaluation and health technology assessment in conditions where it has demonstrated evidence of responsiveness. In conditions with mixed evidence of responsiveness, researchers should consider using the EQ-5D with other condition-specific measures to ensure appropriate estimates of effectiveness. These conditions should be a main focus for future research using the new EQ-5D version with five response levels.

What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a framework from which to measure the outcomes of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs.

PRINCIPLE FINDINGS

We define the outcomes of recovery from the perspective of different stakeholders and time frames. There is no single definition of recovery. There are overlapping phases of recovery which are of particular interest to different stakeholders (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, patients and their caregivers), and the primary outcome of interest may vary depending on the phase and the perspective. In the earliest phase (from the end of the surgery to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit [PACU]), biologic and physiologic outcomes are emphasized. In the intermediate phase (from PACU to discharge from the hospital), symptoms related to pain and gastrointestinal function as well as basic activities are important. Studies of ERAS pathways have reported clinical outcomes and symptoms, including complications, hospital stay, mobilization, and gastrointestinal function, largely during hospitalization. Nevertheless, patients define recovery as return to normal functioning, a process that occurs over weeks to months (late phase). Outcomes reflecting functional status (e.g., physical activity, activities of daily living) and overall health (e.g., quality of life) are important in this phase. To date, few studies reporting the effectiveness of ERAS pathways compared with conventional care have included functional status or quality-of-life outcomes, and there is little information about recovery after discharge from hospital.

CONCLUSION

Recovery after surgery is a complex construct. Different outcomes are important at different phases along the recovery trajectory. Measures for quantifying recovery in hospital and after discharge are available. A consensus-based core set of outcomes with input from multiple stakeholders would facilitate research reporting.