Cargando…

Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input

OBJECTIVES: A previously developed decision model to prioritize surgical procedures in times of scarce surgical capacity used quality of life (QoL) primarily derived from experts in one center. These estimates are key input of the model, and might be more context-dependent than the other input param...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y., van Hof, Kira S., Krijkamp, Eline, Asselman, Franck, Leemans, C. René, van Alphen, Anouk M.I.A., van der Horst, Henriëtte, Widdershoven, Guy, de Jong, Leonie Baatenburg, Lingsma, Hester, Busschbach, Jan, de Jong, Rob Baatenburg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9887555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36721106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01818-z
_version_ 1784880363809538048
author Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y.
van Hof, Kira S.
Krijkamp, Eline
Asselman, Franck
Leemans, C. René
van Alphen, Anouk M.I.A.
van der Horst, Henriëtte
Widdershoven, Guy
de Jong, Leonie Baatenburg
Lingsma, Hester
Busschbach, Jan
de Jong, Rob Baatenburg
author_facet Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y.
van Hof, Kira S.
Krijkamp, Eline
Asselman, Franck
Leemans, C. René
van Alphen, Anouk M.I.A.
van der Horst, Henriëtte
Widdershoven, Guy
de Jong, Leonie Baatenburg
Lingsma, Hester
Busschbach, Jan
de Jong, Rob Baatenburg
author_sort Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: A previously developed decision model to prioritize surgical procedures in times of scarce surgical capacity used quality of life (QoL) primarily derived from experts in one center. These estimates are key input of the model, and might be more context-dependent than the other input parameters (age, survival). The aim of this study was to validate our model by replicating these QoL estimates. METHODS: The original study estimated QoL of patients in need of commonly performed procedures in live expert-panel meetings. This study replicated this procedure using a web-based Delphi approach in a different hospital. The new QoL scores were compared with the original scores using mixed effects linear regression. The ranking of surgical procedures based on combined QoL values from the validation and original study was compared to the ranking based solely on the original QoL values. RESULTS: The overall mean difference in QoL estimates between the validation study and the original study was − 0.11 (95% CI:  -0.12 - -0.10). The model output (DALY/month delay) based on QoL data from both studies was similar to the model output based on the original data only: The Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the ranking of all procedures before and after including the new QoL estimates was 0.988. DISCUSSION: Even though the new QoL estimates were systematically lower than the values from the original study, the ranking for urgency based on health loss per unit of time delay of procedures was consistent. This underscores the robustness and generalizability of the decision model for prioritization of surgical procedures. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01818-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9887555
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98875552023-01-31 Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y. van Hof, Kira S. Krijkamp, Eline Asselman, Franck Leemans, C. René van Alphen, Anouk M.I.A. van der Horst, Henriëtte Widdershoven, Guy de Jong, Leonie Baatenburg Lingsma, Hester Busschbach, Jan de Jong, Rob Baatenburg BMC Med Res Methodol Research OBJECTIVES: A previously developed decision model to prioritize surgical procedures in times of scarce surgical capacity used quality of life (QoL) primarily derived from experts in one center. These estimates are key input of the model, and might be more context-dependent than the other input parameters (age, survival). The aim of this study was to validate our model by replicating these QoL estimates. METHODS: The original study estimated QoL of patients in need of commonly performed procedures in live expert-panel meetings. This study replicated this procedure using a web-based Delphi approach in a different hospital. The new QoL scores were compared with the original scores using mixed effects linear regression. The ranking of surgical procedures based on combined QoL values from the validation and original study was compared to the ranking based solely on the original QoL values. RESULTS: The overall mean difference in QoL estimates between the validation study and the original study was − 0.11 (95% CI:  -0.12 - -0.10). The model output (DALY/month delay) based on QoL data from both studies was similar to the model output based on the original data only: The Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the ranking of all procedures before and after including the new QoL estimates was 0.988. DISCUSSION: Even though the new QoL estimates were systematically lower than the values from the original study, the ranking for urgency based on health loss per unit of time delay of procedures was consistent. This underscores the robustness and generalizability of the decision model for prioritization of surgical procedures. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01818-z. BioMed Central 2023-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9887555/ /pubmed/36721106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01818-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y.
van Hof, Kira S.
Krijkamp, Eline
Asselman, Franck
Leemans, C. René
van Alphen, Anouk M.I.A.
van der Horst, Henriëtte
Widdershoven, Guy
de Jong, Leonie Baatenburg
Lingsma, Hester
Busschbach, Jan
de Jong, Rob Baatenburg
Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input
title Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input
title_full Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input
title_fullStr Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input
title_full_unstemmed Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input
title_short Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input
title_sort minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in or capacity: validation of quality of life input
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9887555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36721106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01818-z
work_keys_str_mv AT gravesteijnbenjaminy minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT vanhofkiras minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT krijkampeline minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT asselmanfranck minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT leemanscrene minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT vanalphenanoukmia minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT vanderhorsthenriette minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT widdershovenguy minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT dejongleoniebaatenburg minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT lingsmahester minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT busschbachjan minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput
AT dejongrobbaatenburg minimizingpopulationhealthlossduetoscarcityinorcapacityvalidationofqualityoflifeinput