Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for the Assessment of Patient Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

P. Ticha, M. Wu, M. Bujda, A. Sukop

. 2022 ; 46 (4) : 1588-1599. [pub] 20220725

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 2002-11-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2003-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 2002-11-01 to 1 year ago

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an integral part of the evaluation of reconstruction surgery outcomes. However, there are limitations in current PROMs when it comes to the assessment of well-being during inpatient stay, patient perception of health, relationship with partner, and vitality (i.e., mood and ability to work and pursue hobbies, carry out daily tasks, and sleep) following breast reconstructive surgery. The aim was to develop a novel set of measures to compare patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following different types of postmastectomy breast reconstruction. METHODS: A novel questionnaire was created and refined through cognitive interviews with patients and expert feedback. A field test study was conducted, including patients who had undergone delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction with implant, autologous tissue, or combination of implant and autologous tissue. Based on the results, confirmatory factor analysis and examination of reliability of the questionnaire were conducted. Results of patient responses were analyzed using Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit, and Cronbach's alpha indicated high internal consistency of the questionnaire. Besides that, patients with combination reconstruction reported significantly lower vitality than patients with implant and autologous reconstruction (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This novel questionnaire expands the current knowledge base of postmastectomy breast reconstruction PROMs. Results of the field test study showed that combination reconstruction was associated with lower patient vitality than other reconstruction types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22024946
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230222110455.0
007      
ta
008      
221017s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00266-022-02985-6 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35879476
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Tichá, Pavla $u Department of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1651 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA $7 xx0282380
245    10
$a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for the Assessment of Patient Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction / $c P. Ticha, M. Wu, M. Bujda, A. Sukop
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an integral part of the evaluation of reconstruction surgery outcomes. However, there are limitations in current PROMs when it comes to the assessment of well-being during inpatient stay, patient perception of health, relationship with partner, and vitality (i.e., mood and ability to work and pursue hobbies, carry out daily tasks, and sleep) following breast reconstructive surgery. The aim was to develop a novel set of measures to compare patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following different types of postmastectomy breast reconstruction. METHODS: A novel questionnaire was created and refined through cognitive interviews with patients and expert feedback. A field test study was conducted, including patients who had undergone delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction with implant, autologous tissue, or combination of implant and autologous tissue. Based on the results, confirmatory factor analysis and examination of reliability of the questionnaire were conducted. Results of patient responses were analyzed using Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit, and Cronbach's alpha indicated high internal consistency of the questionnaire. Besides that, patients with combination reconstruction reported significantly lower vitality than patients with implant and autologous reconstruction (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This novel questionnaire expands the current knowledge base of postmastectomy breast reconstruction PROMs. Results of the field test study showed that combination reconstruction was associated with lower patient vitality than other reconstruction types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
650    12
$a nádory prsu $x chirurgie $7 D001943
650    _2
$a kohortové studie $7 D015331
650    _2
$a estetika $7 D004954
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a mamoplastika $x metody $7 D016462
650    _2
$a mastektomie $x metody $7 D008408
650    _2
$a hodnocení výsledků péče pacientem $7 D000071066
650    _2
$a spokojenost pacientů $7 D017060
650    _2
$a kvalita života $7 D011788
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Wu, Meagan $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1651 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA
700    1_
$a Bujda, Michele $u Department of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sukop, Andrej $u Department of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic. andrej@sukop.cz $1 https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000000159245123
773    0_
$w MED00005691 $t Aesthetic plastic surgery $x 1432-5241 $g Roč. 46, č. 4 (2022), s. 1588-1599
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35879476 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221017 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230222110450 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1854573 $s 1176236
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 46 $c 4 $d 1588-1599 $e 20220725 $i 1432-5241 $m Aesthetic plastic surgery $n Aesthetic Plast Surg $x MED00005691
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20221017

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...