Quality of LifeNCT02771964
Assessing Change in Patient-reported Quality of Life After Elective Surgery: an Observational Comparison Study
An observational study of Quality of Life and Surgical Procedure, Unspecified, run by Washington University School of Medicine at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study will compare two commonly-used methods for assessing patient-reported quality of life. The first is to assess quality of life before surgery and again after surgery using the same validated scale (ie Veterans Rand 12). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Quality of Life, Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
- What is being tested?
- Quality of life survey
- How many people
- 17,850 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jan 2014to Jul 2016
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The target population is all adult patients undergoing elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital who attend the center for preoperative assessment and planning.
Inclusion Criteria: Age 18 or older, ability to read the English consent form, ability to consent, and plans to undergo elective surgery.
Exclusion Criteria: None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Department of Anesthesiology
St Louis, Missouri, 63110
About this study
Official title: Assessing Preoperative Falls as a Predictor for Postoperative Surgical Outcomes
This study will compare two commonly-used methods for assessing patient-reported quality of life. The first is to assess quality of life before surgery and again after surgery using the same validated scale (ie Veterans Rand 12). The second is simply to ask patients whether or not they think their post-operative quality of life is better, worse, or the same. The investigators hypothesize that the second method may be inaccurate due to cognitive bias.
Read the detailed description
All preoperative and postoperative quality of life data comes from the SATISFY-SOS (NCT02032030) surveys, which are administered to patients at the preoperative assessment visit and then approximately 30 days after surgery. To maximize the follow-up survey response rate, patients are emailed the survey (once), mailed hard copy surveys (two times), and phoned (up to five times).
The twelve items comprising the Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) are items 24 through 35 on the survey, while the self-reported global quality of life question is item 1. The VR-12 is made up of two components: a physical component score (PCS), and a mental component score (MCS). Both scores are continuous on a scale from 0 to 100 (where higher is greater quality of life), and they are calibrated so that a score of 50 represents the US population mean (Kazis 2006, Selim 2009). The 30-day follow-up questionnaires also ask patients to self-report their change in quality of life. The question asks, "How would you rate your quality of life now?" with answer choices including "Better than before your procedure," "The same as before your procedure," and "Worse than before your procedure." Surgical specialty for the procedure is obtained from the electronic medical record. Using queries in MetaVision (iMDsoft, Needham, MA), the informaticist will provide the requested survey and medical record data to the investigators. He performs rigorous data validation on each queried variable.
SATISFY-SOS databases are hosted on a firewall-secured network server managed by the Department of Anesthesiology. The server is securely housed behind two locked doors within the departmental office suite and maintained and managed by the departmental IT team. Only the project Informaticist, Data Manager, and Director(s) have full access to these databases, which are also password-protected and encrypted for additional protection. Hardcopies of the baseline surveys are collected daily from the CPAP clinic and securely stored behind two locked doors within the Department of Anesthesiology. Baseline completed paper surveys are scanned into a digital image format (compressed TIFF). The digital image files are indexed and stored on a research file server that is attached to a private network with no public access. Survey email, mail and call lists are generated at Washington University in a similar manner to mailing lists for billing services. For each patient and date of service, a unique ID is generated and never duplicated. This unique ID is a nonsensical only meaningful to the research team.
Baseline surveys are processed by Solutions Data Systems. The digital image files are transmitted to Solutions Data Systems via secure file transfer protocol. When data entry has been confirmed, Solutions Data Systems deletes the digital image file from their servers. Press Ganey, a vendor specializing in patient survey distribution and collection, disseminates, collects, and processes 30-day and 1-year surveys. Paper surveys processed through automated scanning are all manually checked, and a manager listens to 10% of telephone surveys. All telephone surveys are recorded and available for future quality checks for performance improvement. Press Ganey stores the survey hardcopies for 90 days while the study team conducts spot-check quality assessments of the scanned data. The company then shreds the paper copies. Similarly, Press Ganey will hold copies of the electronic files and electronic recordings for 90 days, after which the electronic files are removed permanently from their system (and then only maintained by Washington University). During this 90-day period, the study team conducts additional quality assessments of the converted data.
Sample size considerations for this study were based on the primary outcome. The first component of the primary endpoint is comparing the median quality of life scores among the three self-reported change groups (better/same/worse). Using a minimum important difference of five points (Norman 2003), two tails, alpha of 0.05, and 80% power, the required sample size is 77 patients per group, or 231 total patients among the three groups. The second component of the primary outcome is the agreement between the two quality of life measures, as reflected by the kappa statistic. Kappa does not have sample size requirements beyond lack of sparse cells. The third component of the primary outcome is comparing the percentage agreement across the three different self-reported change groups. Since no studies have performed this type of comparison previously, the investigators pre-specified a 10% change as the minimum important change. Estimating 80% agreement, and using two tails, alpha=0.05, and 80% power, the required total sample size is 311 per group, or 933 total patients. Therefore, this study has adequate power for all of these endpoints.
The following statistical analyses will be performed, using alpha=0.05 and 95 percent confidence intervals, where appropriate. All analyses will be performed twice, once for VR-12 physical quality of life, and again for the VR-12 mental quality of life.
- Compare change in VR-12 QOL scores for those answering better/same/worse (Kruskal-Wallis). If significant, will use Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests to compare each of the three groups, using a Bonferroni correction of alpha=0.017.
- Calculate overall agreement between the self-reported and validated quality of life measures (using weighted kappa, which penalizes disagreements in proportion to their seriousness).
- Calculate the overall percent of patients whose self-reported and validated quality of life scores matched (descriptive), including stratification by self-reported global change better/same/worse (compared using chi-square).
- Calculate the quality of life where an equal proportion of patients reported better and same quality of life (MCID for improvement), or same and worse quality of life (MCID for deterioration). This is an anchor-based approach (Wright 2012)
- Describe the change in VR-12 score and percent of patients reporting better, same, and worse quality of life for each of the following surgical specialties: neurosurgery, orthopedic, plastic, ophthalmologic, general, cardiac, gynecologic, otolaryngology, gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary, urologic, and "other."
Only those answering both the self-reported quality of life question and at least ten out of twelve VR-12 questions at baseline and 30 days will be included. The investigators will describe the characteristics of those with and without missing data. Multiple imputation will be used to fill in missing measurements for those missing two or fewer items on the VR-12 questionnaire.
- Conditions
- Quality of Life, Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
- Being tested
- Quality of life survey
- Keywords
- outcome assessment, postoperative period
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Quality of life surveyOther
All enrolled patients complete a survey of baseline health during their visit to the preoperative assessment clinic and then complete a follow-up survey approximately 30 days after surgery.
The intervention for this study is to compare self-reported quality of life ("How would you rate your quality of life now? (better/same/worse)") to the quantitative change in their VR-12 quality of life scores between the baseline survey and 30-day follow-up survey.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| All patients | All patients receive both types of quality of life assessment, thus serving as their own controls. Receives: Other: Quality of life survey |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Agreement between self-reported quality of life measurement (better/same/worse) and validated quality of life measurement (Veterans Rand 12 Item Health Survey)
Measured: Up to 4 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Minimum detectable difference in quality of life on the VR-12 scale, using self-reported quality of life (better/same/worse) as the anchor
Measured: Up to 4 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 May 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2014
- Primary completionOct 2015
- Study completionJul 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Quality of LifeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Washington University School of MedicineThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 17,850 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Washington University School of Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Michael Avidan, Washington University School of Medicine
- Investigators
- Michael S Avidan, MBBCh, Principal investigator, Washington University School of Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02771964
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 201505035
- Other IDs
- UL1TR000448, 1UH2AG050312-01
- Status last verified
- Jan 2019
- First submitted
- 11 May 2016
- Last updated
- 12 Feb 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified data can be provided upon email request.
Publications
Kazis LE, Miller DR, Skinner KM, Lee A, Ren XS, Clark JA, Rogers WH, Sprio A III, Selim A, Linzer M, Payne SM, Mansell D, Fincke BG. Applications of methodologies of the Veterans Health Study in the VA healthcare system: conclusions and summary. J Ambul Care Manage. 2006 Apr-Jun;29(2):182-8. doi: 10.1097/00004479-200604000-00011.
PubMed 16552327Selim AJ, Rogers W, Fleishman JA, Qian SX, Fincke BG, Rothendler JA, Kazis LE. Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):43-52. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9418-2. Epub 2008 Dec 3.
PubMed 19051059Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C.
PubMed 12719681Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012 Aug;20(3):160-6. doi: 10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000001.
PubMed 23904756Kronzer VL, Jerry MR, Ben Abdallah A, Wildes TS, McKinnon SL, Sharma A, Avidan MS. Changes in quality of life after elective surgery: an observational study comparing two measures. Qual Life Res. 2017 Aug;26(8):2093-2102. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1560-2. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
PubMed 28357679
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Feb 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Assessing Preoperative Falls as a Predictor for Postoperative Surgical Outcomes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02771964
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 201505035
- Conditions
- Quality of Life, Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
- Keywords
- outcome assessment, postoperative period
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 17,850 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Washington University School of MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Study start
- Jan 2014
- Primary completion
- Oct 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 May 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study will compare two commonly-used methods for assessing patient-reported quality of life. The first is to assess quality of life before surgery and again after surgery using the same validated scale (ie Veterans Rand 12). The second is simply to ask patients whether or not they think their post-operative quality of life is better, worse, or the same. The investigators hypothesize that the second method may be inaccurate due to cognitive bias.
Detailed description
All preoperative and postoperative quality of life data comes from the SATISFY-SOS (NCT02032030) surveys, which are administered to patients at the preoperative assessment visit and then approximately 30 days after surgery. To maximize the follow-up survey response rate, patients are emailed the survey (once), mailed hard copy surveys (two times), and phoned (up to five times).
The twelve items comprising the Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) are items 24 through 35 on the survey, while the self-reported global quality of life question is item 1. The VR-12 is made up of two components: a physical component score (PCS), and a mental component score (MCS). Both scores are continuous on a scale from 0 to 100 (where higher is greater quality of life), and they are calibrated so that a score of 50 represents the US population mean (Kazis 2006, Selim 2009). The 30-day follow-up questionnaires also ask patients to self-report their change in quality of life. The question asks, "How would you rate your quality of life now?" with answer choices including "Better than before your procedure," "The same as before your procedure," and "Worse than before your procedure." Surgical specialty for the procedure is obtained from the electronic medical record. Using queries in MetaVision (iMDsoft, Needham, MA), the informaticist will provide the requested survey and medical record data to the investigators. He performs rigorous data validation on each queried variable.
SATISFY-SOS databases are hosted on a firewall-secured network server managed by the Department of Anesthesiology. The server is securely housed behind two locked doors within the departmental office suite and maintained and managed by the departmental IT team. Only the project Informaticist, Data Manager, and Director(s) have full access to these databases, which are also password-protected and encrypted for additional protection. Hardcopies of the baseline surveys are collected daily from the CPAP clinic and securely stored behind two locked doors within the Department of Anesthesiology. Baseline completed paper surveys are scanned into a digital image format (compressed TIFF). The digital image files are indexed and stored on a research file server that is attached to a private network with no public access. Survey email, mail and call lists are generated at Washington University in a similar manner to mailing lists for billing services. For each patient and date of service, a unique ID is generated and never duplicated. This unique ID is a nonsensical only meaningful to the research team.
Baseline surveys are processed by Solutions Data Systems. The digital image files are transmitted to Solutions Data Systems via secure file transfer protocol. When data entry has been confirmed, Solutions Data Systems deletes the digital image file from their servers. Press Ganey, a vendor specializing in patient survey distribution and collection, disseminates, collects, and processes 30-day and 1-year surveys. Paper surveys processed through automated scanning are all manually checked, and a manager listens to 10% of telephone surveys. All telephone surveys are recorded and available for future quality checks for performance improvement. Press Ganey stores the survey hardcopies for 90 days while the study team conducts spot-check quality assessments of the scanned data. The company then shreds the paper copies. Similarly, Press Ganey will hold copies of the electronic files and electronic recordings for 90 days, after which the electronic files are removed permanently from their system (and then only maintained by Washington University). During this 90-day period, the study team conducts additional quality assessments of the converted data.
Sample size considerations for this study were based on the primary outcome. The first component of the primary endpoint is comparing the median quality of life scores among the three self-reported change groups (better/same/worse). Using a minimum important difference of five points (Norman 2003), two tails, alpha of 0.05, and 80% power, the required sample size is 77 patients per group, or 231 total patients among the three groups. The second component of the primary outcome is the agreement between the two quality of life measures, as reflected by the kappa statistic. Kappa does not have sample size requirements beyond lack of sparse cells. The third component of the primary outcome is comparing the percentage agreement across the three different self-reported change groups. Since no studies have performed this type of comparison previously, the investigators pre-specified a 10% change as the minimum important change. Estimating 80% agreement, and using two tails, alpha=0.05, and 80% power, the required total sample size is 311 per group, or 933 total patients. Therefore, this study has adequate power for all of these endpoints.
The following statistical analyses will be performed, using alpha=0.05 and 95 percent confidence intervals, where appropriate. All analyses will be performed twice, once for VR-12 physical quality of life, and again for the VR-12 mental quality of life.
- Compare change in VR-12 QOL scores for those answering better/same/worse (Kruskal-Wallis). If significant, will use Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests to compare each of the three groups, using a Bonferroni correction of alpha=0.017.
- Calculate overall agreement between the self-reported and validated quality of life measures (using weighted kappa, which penalizes disagreements in proportion to their seriousness).
- Calculate the overall percent of patients whose self-reported and validated quality of life scores matched (descriptive), including stratification by self-reported global change better/same/worse (compared using chi-square).
- Calculate the quality of life where an equal proportion of patients reported better and same quality of life (MCID for improvement), or same and worse quality of life (MCID for deterioration). This is an anchor-based approach (Wright 2012)
- Describe the change in VR-12 score and percent of patients reporting better, same, and worse quality of life for each of the following surgical specialties: neurosurgery, orthopedic, plastic, ophthalmologic, general, cardiac, gynecologic, otolaryngology, gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary, urologic, and "other."
Only those answering both the self-reported quality of life question and at least ten out of twelve VR-12 questions at baseline and 30 days will be included. The investigators will describe the characteristics of those with and without missing data. Multiple imputation will be used to fill in missing measurements for those missing two or fewer items on the VR-12 questionnaire.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| All patients | – | Other: Quality of life surveyAll patients receive both types of quality of life assessment, thus serving as their own controls. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The target population is all adult patients undergoing elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital who attend the center for preoperative assessment and planning.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of life surveyAll enrolled patients complete a survey of baseline health during their visit to the preoperative assessment clinic and then complete a follow-up survey approximately 30 days after surgery. The intervention for this study is to compare self-reported quality of life ("How would you rate your quality of life now? (better/same/worse)") to the quantitative change in their VR-12 quality of life scores between the baseline survey and 30-day follow-up survey. | Other | All patients |
Primary outcome
Agreement between self-reported quality of life measurement (better/same/worse) and validated quality of life measurement (Veterans Rand 12 Item Health Survey)
Time frame: Up to 4 months
1 secondary outcome
Minimum detectable difference in quality of life on the VR-12 scale, using self-reported quality of life (better/same/worse) as the anchor
Time frame: Up to 4 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Feb 2019.
- Background: PubMed 16552327Kazis LE, Miller DR, Skinner KM, Lee A, Ren XS, Clark JA, Rogers WH, Sprio A III, Selim A, Linzer M, Payne SM, Mansell D, Fincke BG. Applications of methodologies of the Veterans Health Study in the VA healthcare system: conclusions and summary. J Ambul Care Manage. 2006 Apr-Jun;29(2):182-8. doi: 10.1097/00004479-200604000-00011.
- Background: PubMed 19051059Selim AJ, Rogers W, Fleishman JA, Qian SX, Fincke BG, Rothendler JA, Kazis LE. Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):43-52. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9418-2. Epub 2008 Dec 3.
- Background: PubMed 12719681Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C.
- Background: PubMed 23904756Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012 Aug;20(3):160-6. doi: 10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000001.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 28357679Kronzer VL, Jerry MR, Ben Abdallah A, Wildes TS, McKinnon SL, Sharma A, Avidan MS. Changes in quality of life after elective surgery: an observational study comparing two measures. Qual Life Res. 2017 Aug;26(8):2093-2102. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1560-2. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
- SATISFY-SOS registrationLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified data can be provided upon email request.
Related trials for Quality of Life
RecruitingObservational study
Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) Prospective Trial for Obesity (EGO-Trial)
Obesity
RecruitingPhase 4
The Effects of Ferric Derisomaltose in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency on Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life(COREVIVE-HFrEF)
Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction, Iron Deficiency
Recruiting
Study of a Support Program for Quality of Life in Chinese Cancer Patients and Survivors
Cancer, Survivorship
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Functional Impact of Psychological Symptoms in Patients With Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence Syndrome (SSCD): a National Cross-sectional Study
Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Alberta Cancer Exercise Dose in Colorectal Cancer
Cancer, Colorectal Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Michael S Avidan, MBBCh principal investigator
Washington University School of Medicine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Quality of Life and Surgical Procedure, Unspecified, run by Washington University School of Medicine at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Feb 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Agreement between self-reported quality of life measurement (better/same/worse) and validated quality of life measurement (Veterans Rand 12 Item Health Survey) (time frame: Up to 4 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02771964, which also lists 5 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Feb 2019.