...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of orthopaedic trauma >What outcomes are important for patients after pelvic trauma? Subjective responses and psychometric analysis of three published pelvic-specific outcome instruments
【24h】

What outcomes are important for patients after pelvic trauma? Subjective responses and psychometric analysis of three published pelvic-specific outcome instruments

机译:骨盆外伤后哪些结果对患者很重要?三种已发表的骨盆特定结局工具的主观反应和心理测量分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: The measurement of functional outcomes in pelvic fracture patients remains difficult for authors. The authors aimed to test the construct validity, respondent burden, floor and ceiling effects, and patient perception of 3 previously published pelvic outcome questionnaires. Design: Prospective case series. Setting: Level I Trauma Center. Patients: Those with surgically treated Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) B and C pelvic ring disruption at greater than 12 months after treatment. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measurement: Majeed Pelvic Score, Orlando Pelvic Score, Iowa Pelvis Score, Short Form-36, and Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA). Results: The authors recruited 38 patients, 15 OTA C and 23 OTA B fractures, who had a mean of 57 months from surgery (13-115 months). Patients cited recreational/mobility difficulty (30), emotional stress and family strain (24), employment and financial difficulty (17), sleep disturbance and anxiety (9), and sexual function (6) as the most important consequences of their injuries. Each of the 3 pelvic outcome questionnaires showed a high correlation with the Physical Component Score of the SF-36, and both indices of the SMFA. None had a high correlation with the Mental Component Score of the SF-36, indicating that these scores do not capture psychologic distress and well-being, social functioning, and overall vitality. All 3 questionnaires demonstrated ceiling effects, with 21%, 18%, and 15% of respondents reporting the highest possible scores on the Iowa, Majeed, and Orlando scores, respectively. The time for completion was 3.6 ± 0.4 minutes for the Iowa score, 7.4 ± 0.4 for the Orlando score (not including radiographic assessment), and 2.6 ± 0.2 for the Majeed score. Fifteen patients preferred the Iowa score, 12 the Orlando score, and 11 the Majeed instrument. Conclusions: Three previously published pelvic outcome instruments were found to have strong construct validity based on correlation with the Physical Component Score of the SF-36 and both indices of the SMFA. Subjects identified mental and emotional outcomes as important consequences of their injury; however, none of the pelvic questionnaires measure these domains, as they all correlate poorly with the Mental Component Score of the SF-36. Ceiling effects limit the utility of the all 3 current instruments, and their reliability and responsiveness over time remain unknown. No currently available outcome instrument seems to captures all of the important consequences of these injuries.
机译:目的:作者仍然难以测量骨盆骨折患者的功能预后。作者的目的是测试3份以前发表的骨盆结局问卷的结构效度,应答者负担,地板和天花板的影响以及患者的感知。设计:预期案例系列。地点:一级创伤中心。患者:治疗后超过12个月接受手术治疗的骨伤残协会(OTA)B和C骨盆环破裂的患者。干预:无。主要结局指标:Majeed骨盆评分,Orlando骨盆评分,爱荷华骨盆评分,36式简表和简短的骨骼肌肉功能评估(SMFA)。结果:作者招募了38例患者,其中15例OTA C骨折和23例OTA B骨折,平均手术时间为57个月(13-115个月)。患者认为娱乐/运动困难(30),情绪压力和家庭压力(24),就业和财务困难(17),睡眠障碍和焦虑症(9)和性功能(6)是他们受伤最重要的后果。 3份骨盆结局问卷中的每一个都与SF-36的物理成分评分以及SMFA的两个指标高度相关。没有一个与SF-36的心理成分得分有高度相关性,表明这些得分并未反映心理困扰和幸福感,社交功能以及整体活力。所有3份问卷均显示出上限效应,分别有21%,18%和15%的受访者分别在爱荷华州,马吉德州和奥兰多州得分最高。爱荷华州评分的完成时间为3.6±0.4分钟,奥兰多评分(不包括射线照相评估)的评分时间为7.4±0.4分钟,Majeed评分的评分时间为2.6±0.2分钟。 15位患者更喜欢爱荷华州评分,12位奥兰多评分和11位Majeed乐器。结论:基于与SF-36的物理成分评分和SMFA的两个指标的相关性,发现三种先前发表的骨盆结局工具具有很强的结构效度。受试者将心理和情绪结果视为其伤害的重要后果;然而,没有一个骨盆问卷测量这些领域,因为它们都与SF-36的心理成分评分相关性很差。天花板效应限制了所有3种当前仪器的效用,其可靠性和随时间变化的响应性仍然未知。目前似乎没有任何一种结果工具能够捕获这些伤害的所有重要后果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号