Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States.
Injury. 2011 Mar;42(3):241-7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.044. Epub 2010 Dec 15.
The measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) through generic outcome instruments is important for comparisons of populations across disease states and interventions. The growing number of questionnaires available has made selection and interpretation more difficult. Profile instruments such as the SF-36 and Sickness Impact Profile provide insight into various domains of health with established population norms. Preference-based measures, including the EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index, SF-6D, and QWB-SA are used to generate utility scores, which can be used for cost-effectiveness analysis and therefore have particular relevance in health policy. Both types of generic measures have been used in clinical trials in injured populations to assess the relative impact of interventions on quality-of-life. Comparisons of internal consistency and test-retest reliability across measures reveal minimal differences between instruments, and reported values are acceptable for group comparisons but insufficient for individual clinical use. There is a dearth of studies evaluating the validity of these measures in the trauma population, but available data suggest most of the available instruments are acceptable. Populations that may require special consideration are patients with head, spinal cord, and upper-extremity injuries. Practical issues to consider in selecting a questionnaire include time for completion, which ranges from less than 2 min for the EQ-5D to 20-30 min for the Sickness Impact Profile. Selection of the appropriate measure ultimately depends largely on the population to be studied and whether utility-estimation is desired.
通过通用结局工具来衡量与健康相关的生活质量(HRQOL)对于在疾病状态和干预措施之间比较人群非常重要。可用于测量的问卷数量不断增加,使得选择和解释变得更加困难。SF-36 和 Sickness Impact Profile 等概况工具提供了对健康各领域的深入了解,并具有既定的人群规范。偏好量表,包括 EQ-5D、Health Utilities Index、SF-6D 和 QWB-SA,用于生成效用得分,可用于成本效益分析,因此在卫生政策中具有特殊意义。这两种类型的通用措施都已在受伤人群的临床试验中用于评估干预措施对生活质量的相对影响。对不同措施的内部一致性和重测信度进行比较,发现仪器之间的差异最小,报告的值可用于组间比较,但不足以用于个体临床使用。评估这些措施在创伤人群中的有效性的研究很少,但现有数据表明,大多数现有仪器都是可以接受的。可能需要特殊考虑的人群是头部、脊髓和上肢受伤的患者。在选择问卷时需要考虑的实际问题包括完成时间,从 EQ-5D 的不到 2 分钟到 Sickness Impact Profile 的 20-30 分钟不等。选择合适的测量工具最终在很大程度上取决于要研究的人群,以及是否需要效用估计。