Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 1992 Mar;1(1):10–14. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.1.10

Evidence for validity of a health status measure in assessing short term outcomes of cholecystectomy.

M J Bardsley 1, C W Venables 1, J Watson 1, J Goodfellow 1, P D Wright 1
PMCID: PMC1056799  PMID: 10136822

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To assess the validity of the Nottingham health profile (NHP) as an indicator of short term outcome of cholecystectomy. DESIGN--Prospective assessment of outcome. SETTING--One teaching hospital. Patients--161 consecutive patients admitted for cholecystectomy between January 1989 and September 1990. MAIN MEASURES--Patients' reported symptoms and self assessed NHP scores before cholecystectomy and at follow up at three and 12 months (76 patients); assessment before admission (19). RESULTS--Complete data were obtained preoperatively and at three months' follow up from 154 patients; seven did not respond to the follow up questionnaire. 76/84(90%) patients in the study 12 months or more answered the 12 month follow up questionnaire; eight did not respond. Significant changes in score before and at three months after the operation were observed for four of the six dimensions: energy (35.34 v 19.53, p < 0.0001), pain (27.38 v 9.8, p < 0.0001), sleep (26.99 v 17.51, p = 0.0002), and emotional reactions (16.12 v 7.56, p = 0.001). The mean scores for 76 patients followed up at three and 12 months showed little subsequent change. Scores in readmitted patients were all significantly higher, suggesting poor health. Patients with five reported symptoms had significantly worse scores for all dimensions. Scores were similar before cholecystectomy whether the questionnaire was completed before or after admission. CONCLUSION--The NHP is an appropriate tool for monitoring changes in health after cholecystectomy.

Full text

PDF
10

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Caine N., Harrison S. C., Sharples L. D., Wallwork J. Prospective study of quality of life before and after coronary artery bypass grafting. BMJ. 1991 Mar 2;302(6775):511–516. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6775.511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Deyo R. A., Patrick D. L. Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S254–S268. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ellwood P. M. Shattuck lecture--outcomes management. A technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun 9;318(23):1549–1556. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198806093182327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fries J. F. Toward an understanding of patient outcome measurement. Arthritis Rheum. 1983 Jun;26(6):697–704. doi: 10.1002/art.1780260601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Guyatt G., Walter S., Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hunt S. M., McEwen J., McKenna S. P. Perceived health: age and sex comparisons in a community. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1984 Jun;38(2):156–160. doi: 10.1136/jech.38.2.156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kazis L. E., Anderson J. J., Meenan R. F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. O'Brien B. J., Banner N. R., Gibson S., Yacoub M. H. The Nottingham Health Profile as a measure of quality of life following combined heart and lung transplantation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1988 Sep;42(3):232–234. doi: 10.1136/jech.42.3.232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES