gms | German Medical Science

83rd Annual Meeting of the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery

German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery

16.05. - 20.05.2012, Mainz

Is there a response shift in quality of life assessment after tympanoplasty?

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • corresponding author presenting/speaker Ingo Baumann - Department of Otolaryngology, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Peter Plinkert - Department of Otolaryngology, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Mark Praetorius - Department of Otolaryngology, Heidelberg, Germany

German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. 83rd Annual Meeting of the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. Mainz, 16.-20.05.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. Doc12hno29

DOI: 10.3205/12hno29, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-12hno295

Published: July 23, 2012

© 2012 Baumann et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Background: The response shift - effect leads to a reassessment of therapeutic experiences of pretreatment quality of life. Thereby, it also leads to a change of treatment effect compared to the sole pre- versus post-therapeutic quality of life measurement. We wanted to verify whether there is a relevant response shift in quality of life ratings after tympanoplasty.

Patients and Methods: In this prospective study, 90 patients with chronic otitis media which were treated with tympanoplasty were enrolled. By means of the Chronic Otitis media Outcome Test 15 (COMOT-15), preoperative quality of life was assessed preoperatively (pre-test) and 1 year postoperatively (then-test). Wilcoxon test was used for statistical analysis.

Results: There were only small shift response effects without apparent significance. However, all the answers in the then-test showed a slightly worse preoperative quality of life compared with in the pre-test.

Discussion and Conclusions: The improvement of quality from post-operative view of life was related to pre-operative quality of life. Due to the resulting revaluation of preoperative health status, there was a set point adjustment and ultimately trend to poorer preoperative assessment of quality of life in the then-test. Interventions with probably a greater effect on quality of life (e.g. cochlear implant) probably have a great shift response - potential that should be considered in evaluating the results in the future.