The psychometric performance of generic preference-based measures for patients with pressure ulcers.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101153626 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1477-7525 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14777525 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Qual Life Outcomes Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, c2003-

Severity of Illness Index*; Pressure Ulcer/*psychology ; Quality of Life/*psychology ; Surveys and Questionnaires/*standards; Adult ; Aged ; Female ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care ; Pressure Ulcer/therapy ; Psychometrics ; Reproducibility of Results ; United Kingdom

Background: Pressure ulcers are wounds that result from reduced mobility, and can have a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and quality of life. As pressure ulcers are a consequence of a wide range of conditions and interventions, it is unclear whether the best means of capturing the quality of life impacts is via generic or condition specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric performance of the generic EQ-5D and SF-6D amongst patients identified as having or being at risk of developing pressure ulceration.
Methods: A survey of patients who were using pressure relieving mattresses and other equipment was undertaken within inpatient and community settings using a handheld tablet and postal survey. Data on EQ-5D-3L, SF-12 (used to calculate SF-6D), an EQ-5D dignity bolt-on question, demographic and wound specific questions were collected. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlations, and agreement using Bland-Altman plots. Known group validity was assessed by examining whether the instruments discriminated between different pressure ulcer severity groups. Multivariate linear regression was used to examine the impact of a range of pressure ulcer related variables.
Results: The total number of participants was 307, including 273 from the acute setting (52% response rate) and 41 from the community (32%). SF-6D and EQ-5D were moderately correlated (0.61), suggesting that both instruments were capturing similar quality of life impacts. Both measures were able to significantly discriminate between groups based on the ulcer grade. Presence of a pressure ulcer and number of comorbidities were significant explanatory variables of EQ-5D and SF-6D score.
Conclusions: The results suggest that generic PROMs can effectively capture the impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life, although there are significant challenges in collecting data from this group of patients related to poor clinical condition and mental capacity. The most effective method for obtaining survey data was through the hand held devices and interviewers.

Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. (PMID: 10109801)
J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Jan;2(1):14-8. (PMID: 10180648)
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2000 Sep-Oct;13(5):225-35. (PMID: 11075022)
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000 Nov;46(11):38-52; quiz 53-4. (PMID: 11889736)
J Health Econ. 2002 Mar;21(2):271-92. (PMID: 11939242)
Wound Repair Regen. 2002 May-Jun;10(3):133-40. (PMID: 12100374)
J Wound Care. 2001 Jan;10(1):530-5. (PMID: 12964237)
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Mar;52(3):359-67. (PMID: 14962149)
Age Ageing. 2004 May;33(3):230-5. (PMID: 15082426)
Med Care. 2004 Sep;42(9):851-9. (PMID: 15319610)
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Jun;50(6):605-12. (PMID: 15926965)
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83. (PMID: 1593914)
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Nov;56(4):345-53. (PMID: 17042814)
J Adv Nurs. 2007 Mar;57(5):494-504. (PMID: 17284276)
J Adv Nurs. 2007 May;58(3):263-72. (PMID: 17474915)
Spinal Cord. 2008 May;46(5):386-91. (PMID: 18180790)
Wound Repair Regen. 2008 Jan-Feb;16(1):11-8. (PMID: 18211574)
Nurs Crit Care. 2008 Mar-Apr;13(2):71-9. (PMID: 18289185)
Br J Community Nurs. 2008 Dec;13(12):S6, S8, 10 passim. (PMID: 19060829)
Am J Nurs. 2009 Jan;109(1):40-8; quiz 49. (PMID: 19112264)
Int Wound J. 2009 Apr;6(2):97-104. (PMID: 19432659)
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Jul;57(7):1175-83. (PMID: 19486198)
Clin Nutr. 2010 Feb;29(1):47-53. (PMID: 19564062)
Wound Repair Regen. 2009 Nov-Dec;17(6):797-805. (PMID: 19903301)
Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21. (PMID: 21037243)
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Sep;42(3):443-59. (PMID: 21444182)
Clin Geriatr Med. 2011 May;27(2):241-58. (PMID: 21641509)
Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(5):721-31. (PMID: 21839411)
Am J Crit Care. 2011 Sep;20(5):364-75. (PMID: 21885457)
J Health Econ. 2012 Jan;31(1):306-18. (PMID: 22197308)
Value Health. 2012 May;15(3):504-13. (PMID: 22583461)
J Wound Care. 2012 Jun;21(6):261-2, 264, 266. (PMID: 22886290)
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):991-8. (PMID: 23244799)
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Feb;17(5):v-xv, 1-140. (PMID: 23402232)
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Nov;50(11):1550-7. (PMID: 23764144)
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jun 13;11:95. (PMID: 23764247)
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Feb;18(12):vii-xxvi, 1-191. (PMID: 24568945)
Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Mar;52(3):769-88. (PMID: 25012958)
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A513. (PMID: 27201583)
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10. (PMID: 2868172)
Adv Wound Care. 1994 Nov;7(6):25, 27-8, 31-4 passim. (PMID: 7795863)
JAMA. 1995 Mar 15;273(11):865-70. (PMID: 7869557)
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108. (PMID: 9366889)

CAT/CL10/006 United Kingdom DH_ Department of Health

Date Created: 20150802 Date Completed: 20160215 Latest Revision: 20220129

20231215

PMC4522149

10.1186/s12955-015-0307-4

26231179