Your search
Results 2 resources
-
BACKGROUND: The management of lymphoedema is complex and should be based on guidelines. To date, no data assessing quality of care in lymphoedema in Germany are available. OBJECTIVE: We aimed at evaluating the quality of care of lymphoedema in the metropolitan area of Hamburg using guideline-based indicators. METHODS: Cross-sectional, community-based study including patients with lymphoedema. Assessment included a structured interview, clinical examination and patient-reported outcomes. Quality indicators derived from guidelines by a Delphi consensus were applied. RESULTS: 348 patients (median age 60.5 years) with lymphoedema (66.4%), lipoedema (9.5%) or combined oedema (24.1%) were included. 86.4% performed compression therapy, 85.6% received lymphatic drainage. On average 55.0% of the quality of care criteria were met; 64.8% were satisfied with care. The distribution curve of the health care index was almost normal. Treatment by specialists led to a higher quality of care index. CONCLUSION: Although overall quality of care in lymphoedema is fair, many patients are not treated properly according to guidelines.
-
OBJECTIVES: Patient-relevant treatment benefit is traditionally measured with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The Patient Benefit Index (PBI) methodology allows for a more direct measurement, with the patients rating both importance and achievement of treatment goals. Here, we developed and validated a PBI version specific for the assessment of benefit in lymphedema and lipedema treatment (PBI-L). METHODS: The development included five steps: (1) open item collection; (2) consensus of items in a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) application of the German PBI-L in a cross-sectional study (n = 301); (4) translation into English; (5) application of the English PBI-L in a randomized clinical trial (n = 82). Subscales were developed using factor analysis. Construct validity was analyzed by correlating PBI-L and convergent criteria such as HRQoL and quality of care. To test for responsiveness, the association to change in HRQoL measures was computed. RESULTS: Floor and ceiling effects were low. There were few missing values. Two well-interpretable subscales were found with Cronbach's alpha >0.8 each. Global and subscale scores correlated with convergent criteria and with change in disease-specific HRQoL, but not with change in generic HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: The PBI-L is an internally consistent, valid, and responsive instrument for the assessment of patient-relevant benefit of edema treatment.
Explore
Topic
- Lipedema (2)
- Open Access (1)
- Original studies and data (2)
Resource type
- Journal Article (2)
Publication year
Publication
- Open Access (1)
Online resource
- yes (2)