Advertisement

Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the postoperative quality of recovery 15 (QoR-15) questionnaire for Spanish-speaking patients: A prospective cohort study

  • Victor Morales-Ariza
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Surgery, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Unitat Docent Vall d'Hebron, Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain.
    Affiliations
    Department of Surgery, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Unitat Docent Vall d'Hebron, Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Yuri Loaiza-Aldeán
    Affiliations
    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Marcos de Miguel
    Affiliations
    Department of Surgery, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Unitat Docent Vall d'Hebron, Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Mireia Peña-Navarro
    Affiliations
    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Olga Martínez-Silva
    Affiliations
    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Anna González-Tallada
    Affiliations
    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Susana Manrique-Muñoz
    Affiliations
    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Maternal and foetal medicine Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Miriam de Nadal
    Affiliations
    Department of Surgery, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Unitat Docent Vall d'Hebron, Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Neurotraumatology and neurosurgery Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
Published:November 16, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.11.009

      Highlights

      • The patient perspective is increasingly important to improve the quality of recovery.
      • Patient-reported outcome measures provide their own health through questionnaires.
      • The QoR-15 questionnaire has been validated to several languages but not Spanish.
      • The QoR-15E questionnaire has similar characteristics to those of the original tool.
      • The QoR-15E questionnaire is valid and reliable for Spanish-speaking patients.

      Abstract

      Background

      The postoperative QoR-15 questionnaire may improve the detection of postoperative complications on an early basis and contribute to optimize treatment and recovery. No validated Spanish QoR-15 questionnaire has been available to date.

      Methods

      The Spanish QoR-15 questionnaire (QoR-15E), carried out by official bilingual translators, was administered to 242 adult patients undergoing elective surgery before and 24 h after surgery. Patients were asked about their perceived quality of general recovery using a visual analogue scale (VAS). A random subgroup of 36 patients completed a third questionnaire 30–60 min after having completed the first one, and under the same conditions.

      Results

      The Pearson correlation coefficient between QoR-15E and the VAS score was 0.759. Cronbach's alpha was 0.856 in the postoperative period. Reliability by the split-half method was 0.781. Test-retest correlation coefficient was 0.998. Cohen's d was 0.94. The mean time to complete the preoperative questionnaire was 2.9 ± 0.5 min.

      Conclusions

      The QoR-15E is valid and reliable for assessing postoperative quality of recovery in Spanish-speaking patients, with psychometric and interpretative features similar to those of the original instrument.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ministry of Health
        Consumption and social welfare. Surgical interventions performed in hospitals of the Spanish national health system.
        • Myles P.S.
        • Boney O.
        • Botti M.
        • et al.
        Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: patient comfort.
        Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120: 705-711https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.037
        • Wilson C.J.
        • Mitchelson A.J.
        • Tzeng T.H.
        • et al.
        Caring for the surgically anxious patient: a review of the interventions and a guide to optimizing surgical outcomes.
        Am J Surg. 2016; 212: 151-159https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.023
        • Eichenberger A.S.
        • Haller G.
        • Cheseaux N.
        • et al.
        A clinical pathway in a post-anaesthesia care unit to reduce length of stay, mortality and unplanned intensive care unit admission.
        Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011; 28: 859-866https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e328347dff5
        • Moonesinghe S.R.
        • Jackson A.I.R.
        • Boney O.
        • et al.
        Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: patient-centred outcomes.
        Br J Anaesth. 2019; 123: 664-670https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.07.020
        • Wiering B.
        • de Boer D.
        • Delnoij D.
        Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.
        Health Expect. 2017; 20: 11-23https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12442
        • Abola R.E.
        • Bennett-Guerrero E.
        • Kent M.L.
        • et al.
        American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Patient-Reported Outcomes in an Enhanced Recovery Pathway [published correction appears in Anesth Analg. 2018 Nov;127(5):e95].
        Anesth Analg. 2018; 126 (1874-82)https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002758
        • Stark P.A.
        • Myles P.S.
        • Burke J.A.
        Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15.
        Anesthesiology. 2013; 118: 1332-1340https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b
        • Kleif J.
        • Edwards H.M.
        • Sort R.
        • et al.
        Translation and validation of the Danish version of the postoperative quality of recovery score QoR-15.
        Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015; 59: 912-920https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12525
        • Sá A.C.
        • Sousa G.
        • Santos A.
        • et al.
        Quality of recovery after anesthesia: validation of the Portuguese version of the 'quality of recovery 15' questionnaire.
        Acta Med Port. 2015; 28: 567-574https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.6129
        • Bu X.S.
        • Zhang J.
        • Zuo Y.X.
        Validation of the Chinese version of the quality of recovery-15 score and its comparison with the post-operative quality recovery scale.
        Patient. 2016; 9: 251-259https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6
        • Lyckner S.
        • Böregård I.L.
        • Zetterlund E.L.
        • Chew M.S.
        Validation of the Swedish version of Quality of Recovery score -15: a multicentre, cohort study.
        Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018; 62: 893-902https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13086
        • Demumieux F.
        • Ludes P.O.
        • Diemunsch P.
        • et al.
        Validation of the translated Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire in a French-speaking population.
        Br J Anaesth. 2020; 124: 761-767https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.011
        • Sousa V.D.
        • Rojjanasrirat W.
        Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline.
        J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17: 268-274https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
        • Aromaa A.
        • Koponen P.
        • Tafforeau J.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of health interview surveys and health examination surveys in the European union.
        Eur J Publ Health. 2003; 13: 67-72https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/13.suppl_1.67
        • Wild D.
        • Grove A.
        • Martin M.
        • et al.
        Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation.
        Value Health. 2005; 8: 94-104https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
        • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
        Routine preoperative tests for elective surgery (NICE Guideline 45).
        https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng45
        Date: 2016
        Date accessed: March 10, 2021
        • Myles P.S.
        • Hunt J.O.
        • Nightingale C.E.
        • et al.
        Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults.
        Anesth Analg. 1999; 88: 83-90https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199901000-00016
        • Boparai J.K.
        • Singh S.
        • Kathuria P.
        How to design and validate A questionnaire: a guide.
        Curr Clin Pharmacol. 2018; 13: 210-215https://doi.org/10.2174/1574884713666180807151328
        • Royse C.F.
        • Newman S.
        • Chung F.
        • et al.
        Development and feasibility of a scale to assess postoperative recovery: the post-operative quality recovery scale.
        Anesthesiology. 2010; 113: 892-905https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d960a9
        • Cook D.A.
        • Beckman T.J.
        Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application.
        Am J Med. 2006; 119 (166.e7-16)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036
        • von Elm E.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Egger M.
        • et al.
        Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
        BMJ. 2007; 335: 806-808https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
        • Myles P.S.
        • McLeod A.D.
        • Hunt J.O.
        • Fletcher H.
        Sex differences in speed of emergence and quality of recovery after anaesthesia: cohort study.
        Br Med J. 2001; 322: 710-711https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7288.710
        • Buchanan F.F.
        • Myles P.S.
        • Cicuttini F.
        Effect of patient sex on general anaesthesia and recovery.
        Br J Anaesth. 2011; 106: 832-839https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer094
        • Bartley E.J.
        • Fillingim R.B.
        Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings.
        Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111: 52-58https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet127
        • Apfel C.C.
        • Läärä E.
        • Koivuranta M.
        • et al.
        A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers.
        Anesthesiology. 1999; 91: 693-700https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199909000-00022
        • Gan T.J.
        • Belani K.G.
        • Bergese S.
        • et al.
        Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting [published correction appears in Anesth Analg. 2020;131(5):e241].
        Anesth Analg. 2020; 131: 411-448https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004833
        • Myles P.S.
        Measuring quality of recovery in perioperative clinical trials.
        Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2018; 31: 396-401https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000612
        • Gornall B.F.
        • Myles P.S.
        • Smith C.L.
        • et al.
        Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: a quantitative systematic review.
        Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111: 161-169https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet014
        • Myles P.S.
        • Williams D.L.
        • Hendrata M.
        • et al.
        Patient satisfaction after anaesthesia and surgery: results of a prospective survey of 10,811 patients.
        Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84: 6-10https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013383
        • Myles P.S.
        • Myles D.B.
        • Galagher W.
        • et al.
        Minimal clinically important difference for three quality of recovery scales.
        Anesthesiology. 2016; 125: 39-45https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001158
        • Myles P.S.
        • Weitkamp B.
        • Jones K.
        • et al.
        Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40.
        Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84: 11-15https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013366
        • Chazapis M.
        • Walker E.M.
        • Rooms M.A.
        • et al.
        Measuring quality of recovery-15 after day case surgery.
        Br J Anaesth. 2016; 116: 241-248https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev413
        • Kleif J.
        • Waage J.
        • Christensen K.B.
        • Gögenur I.
        Systematic review of the QoR-15 score, a patient- reported outcome measure measuring quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia.
        Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120: 28-36https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.013
        • Vilagut G.
        • Ferrer M.
        • Rajmil L.
        • et al.
        El Cuestionario de Salud SF-36 español: una década de experiencia y nuevos desarrollos [The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments].
        Gac Sanit. 2005; 19: 135-150https://doi.org/10.1157/13074369
        • Myles P.S.
        • Hunt J.O.
        • Fletcher H.
        • et al.
        Relation between quality of recovery in hospital and quality of life at 3 months after cardiac surgery.
        Anesthesiology. 2001; 95: 862-867https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200110000-00013
        • Jaensson M.
        • Nilsson U.
        • Dahlberg K.
        Methods and timing in the assessment of postoperative recovery: a scoping review.
        Br J Anaesth. 2022; 129: 92-103https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.015