3.9 Article

Functional outcome at 2.5, 5, 9, and 24 months after injury in the Netherlands

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31802b71c9

关键词

injury; health status; functioning; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The collection of empirical data on the frequency, severity, and duration of functioning is a prerequisite to identify patient groups with long term or permanent disability. Methods: We fielded postal questionnaires in a stratified sample of 8,564 injury patients aged 15 years and older, who had visited an emergency department in the Netherlands. Measurements were at 2.5, 5, 9, and 24 months after the injury and included a generic health status classification (EQ-5D), socio-demographic, and medical information. We analyzed determinants of long-term functional outcome by multivariate regression analysis. Results: Five months after the injury health status of nonhospitalized injury patients was comparable to the general population's health (EQ-5D summary measure 0.87). Health status of patients admitted for 3 days or less improved until 9 months (0.82). For those admitted more than 3 days health status improved until 24 months (0.48 toward 0.67), but remained below population norms. Hospitalization, age and sex (females), type of injury (spinal cord injury, hip fracture, and lower extremity injury), and comorbidity were significant predictors of poor functioning in the long term. Conclusions: Recovery patterns vary widely between nonhospitalized, shortly, and long hospitalized injury patients. Nonhospitalized injury patients recover within 5 months from an injury whereas a considerable group of hospitalized injury patients suffer from persistent health problems. Our study indicates the importance of health monitoring with an adapted longitudinal design for injury patients. The time intervals used should match the various stages of the recovery process, which depends on the severity of the injury studied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据