Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2022
Outcome Measurement in Children With a History of Disorders of Consciousness After Severe Brain Injury: Telephone Administration of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition, and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Pediatric Revision.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ludwig Natasha N, Suskauer Stacy J, Rodgin Sandra, Chen Julia, Borda Allison, Jones Kara, Lahey Sarah, Slomine Beth S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Examine initial feasibility and utility of a battery of measures administered via telephone interview with a caregiver for describing long-term outcomes in individuals with a history of disorders of consciousness (DoC) after pediatric acquired brain injury (ABI).
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Caregiver interview administered via telephone.
PATIENTS: Convenience sample admitted to an inpatient pediatric neurorehabilitation unit with DoC after ABI at least 1 year prior to assessment (n = 41, 5-22 yr old at assessment).
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3), and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Pediatric Revision (GOS-E Peds) were examined. Administration time of the Vineland-3 ranged from 13 to 101 minutes (m = 50) and the GOS-E Peds ranged from 2 to 10 minutes (m = 3). Vineland-3 Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) ranged from standard scores (SSs) of 20 (exceptionally low) to 100 (average) and GOS-E Peds scores ranged from 3 (i.e., upper moderate disability) to 7 (vegetative state). Lower adaptive functioning on the Vineland-3 ABC was strongly associated with greater disability on the GOS-E Peds (r = -0.805). On the Vineland-3 ABC, 19.5% earned the lowest possible score, whereas 12.2% obtained the lowest possible score for survivors on the GOS-E Peds; only 7.3% earned lowest scores on both measures.
CONCLUSIONS: The Vineland-3 and GOS-E Peds were feasibly administered by telephone and were complementary in this cohort; the GOS-E provided a quick and easy measure of gross functional outcome, whereas the Vineland-3 took longer to administer but provided a greater level of detail about functioning. When both measures were used together, the range and variability of scores were maximized.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Caregiver interview administered via telephone.
PATIENTS: Convenience sample admitted to an inpatient pediatric neurorehabilitation unit with DoC after ABI at least 1 year prior to assessment (n = 41, 5-22 yr old at assessment).
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3), and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Pediatric Revision (GOS-E Peds) were examined. Administration time of the Vineland-3 ranged from 13 to 101 minutes (m = 50) and the GOS-E Peds ranged from 2 to 10 minutes (m = 3). Vineland-3 Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) ranged from standard scores (SSs) of 20 (exceptionally low) to 100 (average) and GOS-E Peds scores ranged from 3 (i.e., upper moderate disability) to 7 (vegetative state). Lower adaptive functioning on the Vineland-3 ABC was strongly associated with greater disability on the GOS-E Peds (r = -0.805). On the Vineland-3 ABC, 19.5% earned the lowest possible score, whereas 12.2% obtained the lowest possible score for survivors on the GOS-E Peds; only 7.3% earned lowest scores on both measures.
CONCLUSIONS: The Vineland-3 and GOS-E Peds were feasibly administered by telephone and were complementary in this cohort; the GOS-E provided a quick and easy measure of gross functional outcome, whereas the Vineland-3 took longer to administer but provided a greater level of detail about functioning. When both measures were used together, the range and variability of scores were maximized.