Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Qual Life Res. 2019 Nov;28(11):3005-3013. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02256-z. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
To evaluate the correspondence of directly reported and recalled health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a heterogeneous sample of trauma patients.
Adult trauma patients who attended the Emergency Department and were admitted between 03/2016 and 11/2016 were invited to participate. Postal surveys were sent 1 week (T1), 3 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) post-trauma. The EQ-5D-3L and Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) were used to assess directly reported and recalled HRQL.
The EQ-5D was completed by 446 patients at T1, T2, and T3. Directly reported mean T1 EQ-5D summary score was 0.482, whereas recalled T1 EQ-5D summary score was 0.453 (p < 0.05) at T2 and 0.363 (p < 0.001) at T3. Directly reported mean T2 EQ-5D summary score was 0.737 and mean recalled T2 EQ-5D summary score was 0.713 (p < 0.05) at T3. Directly reported mean T1 EQ-VAS was 56.3, whereas mean recalled T1 EQ-VAS at T2 and T3 was 55.4 (p = 0.304) and 53.3 (p < 0.05), respectively. Directly reported mean T2 EQ-VAS was 72.5 and recalled T2 EQ-VAS at T3 was 68.0 (p < 0.001). The correspondence between all directly reported and recalled HRQL (both EQ-5D summary and EQ-VAS) was fair (ICC = 0.518-0.598). Lowest correspondence was seen in patients with major trauma (injury severity score ≥ 16) and in patients with middle-level education.
Recalled HRQL measured by the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS was systematically lower compared to the directly reported HRQL. Patient characteristics, injury severity, subjectivity of the dimension, and time interval appear to influence correspondence between directly reported and recalled HRQL.
评估异质创伤患者群体中直接报告和回忆的健康相关生活质量（HRQL）的一致性。
2016 年 3 月至 11 月期间，邀请在急诊室就诊并住院的成年创伤患者参加该研究。创伤后 1 周（T1）、3 个月（T2）和 12 个月（T3）时通过邮寄问卷进行调查。使用 EQ-5D-3L 和视觉模拟量表（EQ-VAS）评估直接报告和回忆的 HRQL。
在 T1、T2 和 T3，共有 446 名患者完成了 EQ-5D。直接报告的 T1 EQ-5D 综合评分均值为 0.482，而 T2 的回忆评分均值为 0.453（p＜0.05），T3 的回忆评分均值为 0.363（p＜0.001）。直接报告的 T2 EQ-5D 综合评分均值为 0.737，T3 的回忆评分均值为 0.713（p＜0.05）。直接报告的 T1 EQ-VAS 均值为 56.3，而 T2 和 T3 的回忆评分均值分别为 55.4（p=0.304）和 53.3（p＜0.05）。直接报告的 T2 EQ-VAS 均值为 72.5，T3 的回忆评分均值为 68.0（p＜0.001）。所有直接报告和回忆的 HRQL（EQ-5D 综合评分和 EQ-VAS）之间的一致性为中等（ICC=0.518-0.598）。在严重创伤（损伤严重程度评分≥16）和中等教育水平的患者中，回忆的 HRQL 与直接报告的 HRQL 相比，一致性最低。
EQ-5D-3L 和 EQ-VAS 测量的回忆 HRQL 明显低于直接报告的 HRQL。患者特征、损伤严重程度、维度的主观性和时间间隔似乎会影响直接报告和回忆的 HRQL 之间的一致性。
