Assessment of health-related quality of life in Turkish patients with facial prostheses

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Ömer Uysal¹  Banu Karayazgan²  Servet Ebrinç³  Yumushan Günay⁴  Kadriye Peker⁵  Arzu Atay⁴ 

[1] Department of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Medical School, Bezmialem Vakif University, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey;Department of Prosthodonticsy, Dental Faculty of Baskent University, Altunizade, Istanbul, Turkey;Department of Psychiyatry, GATA Haydarpaşa Training Hospital, Usküdar, Istanbul, Turkey;Department of Prosthodontics, GATA Haydarpaşa Training Hospital Dental Service, Usküdar, Istanbul, Turkey;Department of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, 34093 Fatih/Çapa, Istanbul, Turkey

关键词: WHOQOL-BREF;    Acquired facial defect;    Facial prosthesis;    Quality of life;   

Others  :  824109
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-11

 received in 2012-06-09, accepted in 2013-01-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Facial prostheses are intended to provide a non-operative rehabilitation for patients with acquired facial defects. By improving aesthetics and quality of life (QOL), this treatment involves reintegration of the patient into family and social life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of QOL in adult patients with facial prostheses and to compare this perception with that of a control group.

Methods

The study participants consisted of 72 patients, who were divided into three equal-sized groups according to the type of prosthesis (OP- orbital prosthesis, AP- auricular prosthesis, NP - nasal prosthesis) and 24 healthy control participants without any congenital or acquired deformity of face or body. Clinical and socio-demographic data were gathered from each person’s medical chart. Participants completed the Turkish version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF). Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, Pearson's chi-square test, ANOVA, ANCOVA, and Pearson correlation were used to analyse the data.

Results

Compared with the control participants, patients with NP scored lower on the all domains of QOL and all three patient groups had lower scores on overall QOL and its domains of physical and environmental health. Patients with OP reported significantly lower physical health scores than those with AP, while patients with NP reported significantly lower overall QOL and psychological health scores than those with AP. Female patients had lower environmental domain scores than did male patients. The patient’s age and income correlated with social relationships QOL, while the patient’s income and the age of facial prosthesis were correlated with environmental QOL.

Conclusion

Patients with facial prostheses had lower scores in overall QOL, physical and environmental health domains than the control participants. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics such as age, gender, income, localization of the defect, and age of facial prosthesis were associated with patients’ QOL. These findings may provide valuable information about the specific health needs of these patients that may affect their well-being. Further studies are needed to confirm these results. Use of the WHOQOL-BREF may provide valuable information for determining patients’ needs and priorities as well as for planning and developing comprehensive prosthetic rehabilitation programs.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Atay et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lohr KN, Zebrack BJ: Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:99-107.
• [2]Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M: Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 2012, 21:1305-1314.
• [3]Bou C, Pomar P, Miquel JL, Poisson P: Maxillo-facial prostheses: an issue in public health. Odontostomatol Trop 2006, 29:34-40.
• [4]Levine E, Degutis L, Pruzinsky T, Shin J, Persing JA: Quality of life and facial trauma: psychological and body image effects. Ann Plast Surg 2005, 54:502-510.
• [5]Lim SY, Lee D, Oh KS, Nam B, Bang SI, Mun GH, Pyon JK, Kim JH, Chang Yoon S, Song HS, Jeon HJ: Concealment, depression and poor quality of life in patients with congenital facial anomalies. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg 2010, 63:1982-1989.
• [6]De Sousa A: Psychological issues in acquired facial trauma. Indian J Plast Surg 2010, 43:200-205.
• [7]Callahan C: Facial disfigurement and sense of self in head and neck cancer. Soc Work Health Care 2004, 40:73-87.
• [8]Newton JT, Fiske J, Foote O, Frances C, Loh IM, Radford DR: Preliminary study of the impact of loss of part of the face and its prosthetic restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1999, 82:585-590.
• [9]Horlock N, Vogelin E, Bradbury ET, Grobbelaar AO, Gault DT: Psychosocial outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: a retrospective study of 62 patients. Ann Plast Surg 2005, 54:517-524.
• [10]De Sousa A: Psychological issues in oral and maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008, 46:661-664.
• [11]Weıss MG, Ramakrıshna J, Somma D: Health-related stigma: rethinking concepts and interventions. Psychol Health Med 2006, 11(3):277-287.
• [12]Leonardi A, Buonaccorsi S, Pellacchia V, Moricca LM, Indrizzi E, Fini G: Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation using extraoral implants. J Craniofac Surg 2008, 19:398-405.
• [13]Dostalova T, Kozak J, Hubacek M, Holakovsky J, Kř í ž P, Strnad J, Seydlova M: Facial Prosthesis. In Implant Dentistry - A Rapidly Evolving Practice. Edited by Turkyilmaz I. Croatia: InTech; 2011:451-464.
• [14]Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C, Gennari Filho H, dos Santos DM: Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009, 62:175-180.
• [15]Chang TL, Garrett N, Roumanas E, Beumer J 3rd: Treatment satisfaction with facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2005, 94:275-280.
• [16]Klein M, Menneking H, Spring A, Rose M: Analysis of quality of life in patients with a facial prosthesis. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 2005, 9:205-213.
• [17]Ahn JM, Lee SY, Yoon JS: Health-related quality of life and emotional status of anophthalmic patients in Korea. Am J Ophthalmol 2010, 149:1005-1011.
• [18]dos Santos DM, Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Bannwart LC, Rezende MC, Magro-Filho O, Moreno A: Prosthesis auricular with osseointegrated implants and quality of life. J Craniofac Surg 2010, 21:94-96.
• [19]Schoen PJ, Raghoebar GM, van Oort RP, Reintsema H, van der Laan BF, Burlage FR, Roodenburg JL, Vissink A: Treatment outcome of bone-anchored craniofacial prostheses after tumor surgery. Cancer 2001, 92:3045-3050.
• [20]Robinson E: Psychological research on visible differences in adults. In Visibly different: Coping with disfigurement. Edited by Lansdown R, Rumsey N, Bradbury E, Carr T, Partridge J. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997:102-111.
• [21]Thompson A, Kent G: Adjusting to disfigurement: processes involved in dealing with being visibly different. Clin Psychol Rev 2001, 21:663-682.
• [22]Bonanno A, Choi JY: Psychosocial aspects of orbitofacial disfigurement in cancer patients. Ophthalmic Oncol ( M.D. Anderson Solid Tumor Oncol Series) 2011, 6:311-318.
• [23]Versnel SL, Plomp RG, Passchier J, Duivenvoorden HJ, Mathijssen IM: Long-term psychological functioning of adults with severe congenital facial disfigurement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 129:110-117.
• [24]Depprich R, Naujoks C, Lind D, Ommerborn M, Meyer U, Kübler NR, Handschel J: Evaluation of the quality of life of patients with maxillofacial defects after prosthodontic therapy with obturator prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011, 40:71-79.
• [25]Riaz N, Warriach RA: Quality of life in patients with obturator prostheses. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2010, 22:121-125.
• [26]Irish J, Sandhu N, Simpson C, Wood R, Gilbert R, Gullane P, Brown D, Goldstein D, Devins G, Barker E: Quality of life in patients with maxillectomy prostheses. Head Neck 2009, 31:813-821.
• [27]Genden EM, Okay D, Stepp MT, Rezaee RP, Mojica JS, Buchbinder D, Urken ML: Comparison of functional and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with and without palatomaxillary reconstruction: a preliminary report. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003, 129:775-780.
• [28]Kornblith AB, Zlotolow IM, Gooen J, Huryn JM, Lerner T, Strong EW, Shah JP, Spiro RH, Holland JC: Quality of life of maxillectomy patients using an obturator prosthesis. Head Neck 1996, 18:323-334.
• [29]WHOQOL Group: Development of the WHOQOL: rationale and current status. Int J Mental Health 1994, 23:24-56.
• [30]Murphy BA, Ridner S, Wells N, Dietrich M: Quality of life research in head and neck cancer: a review of the current state of the science. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007, 62:251-267.
• [31]Lenth RV: Java Applets for Power and Sample Size (Computer software). 2006. [http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power webcite]
• [32]WHOQOL Group: Development of the WHOQOL: WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998, 28:551-558.
• [33]Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA, WHOQOL Group: The world health organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res 2004, 13:299-310.
• [34]Eser E, Fidaner H, Fidaner C, Eser SY, Elbi H, Göker E: Psychometric properties of WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOLBREF. J Psychiatr Psychol Psychopharmacol 1999, 7(Suppl 2):23-40.
• [35]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.
• [36]Anderson JD, Szalai JP: The Toronto outcome measure for craniofacial prosthetics: a condition-specific quality-of-life instrument. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003, 18:531-538.
• [37]Sloan JA, Tolman DE, Anderson JD, Sugar AW, Wolfaardt JF, Novotny P: Patients with reconstruction of craniofacial or intraoral defects: development of instruments to measure quality of life. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001, 16:225-245.
• [38]Patrick DL, Deyo RA: Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989, 27(3 Suppl):217-232.
• [39]Çağlayan D: The Attitudes Of Responsible Local Agencies Towards Disability. PhD thesis. Middle East Technical University: The Graduate School of Natural And Applied Sciences; 2008.
• [40]Fırat S: People with disabilities in Turkey: an overview. Inform Tech Manag Soc 2010, 3:51-54.
• [41]Immerman S, Constantinides M, Pribitkin EA, White WM: Nasal soft tissue trauma and management. Facial Plast Surg 2010, 26:522-531.
• [42]Rumsey N, Harcourt D: Body image and disfigurement: issues and interventions. Body Imag 2004, 1:83-97.
• [43]Biordi D, Nicholson N: Social Isolation. In Chronic Illness Impact and Interventions. 7th edition. Edited by Larsen P. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishing, Inc; 2008:85-115.
• [44]Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ: Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing artificial eyes. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2011, 39:47-52.
• [45]Cheng AC, Leong EW, Khin NT, Wee AG, Fung CK, Lee CM: Osseointegrated implants in craniofacial application: current status. Singapore Dent J 2007, 29:1-11.
• [46]Kock M: Disability law in Germany: an overview of employment, education and access rights. GLJ 2004, 5:1373-1392.
• [47]Turkish Statistical Institute: Survey on Problems and Expectations of Disabled People 2010. Ankara; 2010.
• [48]Saka Ö, Varol N: Institutional and community care for older people in Turkey. Eurohealth 2007, 13:20-22.