Translation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the Quality of Postoperative Recovery Score QoR-15: A Multi-Centred Cohort Study

Onur Selvi, Mustafa Azizoğlu, Gülhan Temel, Serkan Tulgar, Ahish Chitneni, Ece Nur Çınar, Zeliha Özer, Yavuz Gürkan, Onur Selvi, Mustafa Azizoğlu, Gülhan Temel, Serkan Tulgar, Ahish Chitneni, Ece Nur Çınar, Zeliha Özer, Yavuz Gürkan

Abstract

Objective: The Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire is a self-rated questionnaire used to assess the quality of the postoperative recovery and health status of patients in the early period following surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Turkish version of the Quality of Recovery-15.

Methods: After approval by the Maltepe University local ethics committee, this observational study was conducted among patients who received surgical interventions at Mersin University Hospital between July 2019 and January 2020. Reliability, feasibility, and validity were assessed to validate the Turkish version of the Quality of Recovery-15.

Results: The completion rate of the form was determined to be 92% and a total of 200 patients were enrolled in the study. The Cronbach's alpha of the global Turkish version of the Quality of Recovery-15 was 0.927. Test-retest reliability was 0.84 [CI 95%: 0.75-0.90] and Cohen's effect size was 0.319. The total standardized response mean was determined as 0.53.

Conclusions: This is the first study in which the Quality of Recovery-15 scale was translated into Turkish with our knowledge. The Turkish version of the Quality of Recovery-15 showed satisfactory reliability and validity in evaluating the quality of recovery after surgery in the Turkish population.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart.

References

    1. Kleif J, Edwards HM, Sort R, Vilandt J, Gögenur I. Translation and validation of the Danish version of the postoperative quality of recovery score QoR-15. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59(7):912 920. 10.1111/aas.12525)
    1. Lyckner S, Böregård IL, Zetterlund EL, Chew MS. Validation of the Swedish version of Quality of Recovery score -15: a multicentre, cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62(7):893 902. 10.1111/aas.13086)
    1. Karaman S, Arici S, Dogru al. Validation of the Turkish version of the quality of recovery-40 questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:8. 10.1186/1477-7525-12-8)
    1. Kleif J, Gögenur I. Severity classification of the quality of recovery-15 score-An observational study. J Surg Res. 2018;225:101 107. 10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.040)
    1. Sousa VD, 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(2):268 274. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x)
    1. Organization WH. Researchtools: process of translationandadaptation of instruments. .
    1. Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(6):1332 1340. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b)
    1. In GAT. Construct Validity. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine Gellman M.D., Turner J.R.eds. Springer, New York, NY; 2013.
    1. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53 55. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd)
    1. Vilagut G. Test-retest reliability. In: Michalos A.C.ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht; 2014.
    1. Nahler G. Standardized response mean (SRM). In: Dictionary of Pharmaceutical Medicine. Vienna: Springer; 2009.
    1. Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15. 10.5334/ijic.65)
    1. Fincham JE. Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the journal. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2):43. 10.5688/aj720243)
    1. Schröder ML, de Wispelaere MP, Staartjes VE. Are patient-reported outcome measures biased by method of follow-up? Evaluating paper-based and digital follow-up after lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J. 2019;19(1):65 70. 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.002)
    1. Burns D, Perlas A. Regional anaesthesia and quality of recovery after surgery. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(5):576 579. 10.1111/anae.14980)
    1. Myles PS, Boney O, Botti al. Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: patient comfort. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(4):705 711. 10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.037)

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir