Kohlmann T, Raspe H
Institut für Sozialmedizin, Medizinische Universität Lübeck.
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 1998 Jun;37 Suppl 1:S30-7.
To investigate agreement between "indirect" and "direct" methods for measuring outcome of inpatient rehabilitation programmes.
A consecutive sample of 610 patients with musculoskeletal, cardiopulmonary and other diseases completed questionnaires 2 weeks before and 4 to 6 weeks after inpatient rehabilitation treatment. Overall response rate was 80%. Patient outcome variables were measured at baseline and follow-up. These included 14 items covering general health, pain, functional limitations, sleep, energy, mood, and social contacts. In the follow-up questionnaire patients were also asked to recall their baseline situation and to answer the same items according to this recalled condition and, furthermore, to report directly the perceived change on a 3-point scale ("deteriorated", "unchanged", "improved"). Thus, three different methods for measuring change could be compared: changes observed prospectively between baseline and follow-up, change as the difference of recalled baseline status and observed follow-up status, and perceived change.
Spearman correlation coefficients r(S) and Cohen' Kappa statistic were used to analyse association and chance-corrected agreement, respectively, between these three different methods. Correlation and agreement between the different indicators of change was only moderate to fair with r(S) varying between 0.10 and 0.65, Cohen's Kappa ranged between 0.07 and 0.62. Results of principal components analysis indicated that items representing perceived change did not reflect the substantive aspects of change and were assigned indiscriminately to one single component.
Prospective and retrospective methods for measuring change are not functionally equivalent. Whenever feasible, prospective methods using observed baseline and follow-up data ("indirect" measurement of change) should be used in the evaluation of patient outcome in rehabilitation.
探讨测量住院康复项目效果的“间接”和“直接”方法之间的一致性。
对610例患有肌肉骨骼疾病、心肺疾病及其他疾病的患者进行连续抽样,在住院康复治疗前2周和治疗后4至6周完成问卷调查。总体回复率为80%。在基线和随访时测量患者的结局变量。这些变量包括涵盖一般健康状况、疼痛、功能受限、睡眠、精力、情绪和社会交往等方面的14项内容。在随访问卷中,还要求患者回忆其基线情况,并根据回忆的情况回答相同的项目,此外,直接以3分制报告感知到的变化(“恶化”、“未改变”、“改善”)。因此,可以比较三种不同的测量变化的方法:基线和随访之间前瞻性观察到的变化、回忆的基线状态与观察到的随访状态之差所表示的变化以及感知到的变化。
分别使用Spearman相关系数r(S)和Cohen's Kappa统计量来分析这三种不同方法之间的关联和经机会校正的一致性。不同变化指标之间的相关性和一致性仅为中等至尚可,r(S)在0.10至0.65之间,Cohen's Kappa在0.07至0.62之间。主成分分析结果表明,代表感知到的变化的项目并未反映变化的实质方面,而是被随意地归为一个单一成分。
测量变化的前瞻性和回顾性方法在功能上并不等效。只要可行,在评估康复患者的结局时应使用基于观察到的基线和随访数据的前瞻性方法(变化的“间接”测量)。