Quality of Life Research

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 169–177 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life of day-case surgery patients: a pre/posttest survey using the EuroQoL-5D

  • Riitta Suhonen
  • Heli Virtanen
  • Katja Heikkinen
  • Kirsi Johansson
  • Anne Kaljonen
  • Tiina Leppänen
  • Sanna Salanterä
  • Helena Leino-Kilpi



This paper describes and compares the perceived health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of day-case surgery patients before and after their procedures and examines some associated patient-related factors.


A pre/posttest survey design was employed to collect data from Finnish adult day-case surgery patients using participant-completed EuroQoL 5-Dimensional Classification Component Scores (EQ-5D) questionnaires given 2 weeks presurgery (n = 131) and 2 weeks postsurgery (n = 131) in 2004.


No noticeable change after minor surgery was found using the EQ-5D. Using the EQ-5D index, patients perceived their HRQoL as high before and after surgery. Almost one fifth (17%) reported no pain or discomfort before the procedure compared with 40% after it. As measured by the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQVAS), those patients who reported chronic illness before the operation had a lower perception of their HRQoL compared with those who did not. It was also found that self-care and usual activities were more disturbed after surgery.


Although there were increases and decreases within items of the EQ-5D, overall, there was no improvement on EQ-5D scores. More research is needed to explore the sensitivity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D measure in day-case surgery patients.


Day-case surgery patient Health-related quality of life 



confidence interval


EuroQoL 5-Dimensional Classification Component Scores


EuroQoL visual analogue scale


health-related quality of life

SF-12, SF-36

Short-Form Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires



This study was funded by the South-Western Hospital District of Finland, which is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank Norman Rickard, M.Sc., B.Sc. (hons), R.N. for his help with the English language.


  1. 1.
    Fuchs, K. H. (2002). Minimally invasive surgery. Endoscopy, 34, 154–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Järvelin, J. (2002). Health care systems in transition: Finland. European Observatory on Health Care Systems 4(1), 1–90.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Punnonen, H. (2005). Year 2004 at Finnish hospitals [Sairaaloiden vuosi 2004]. Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    STAKES. (2005). Care periods with surgical operations in 2004 and trends of day-case surgery 1997–2004. [Toimenpiteelliset hoitojaksot vuonna 2004 ja päiväkirurgian trendejä vuosina 1997–2004]. Statistics. Retreived January 30, 2006, from,9,1.aspfiles/pdf./Tilastotiedote2005/Tt26_05.pdf
  5. 5.
    SMG Marketing Group. (2001). Outpatient surgery doubles. OR Manager, 17, 27.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    WHO. (1994). World Health Organization. Quality of life assessment: An annotated bibliography. WHO/MNH/PSF/94.1. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weale, A. E., Ackrouy, C. E., Mani, G. V., & Winson, I. G. (1998). Day-case or short-stay admission for arthroscopic knee surgery: A randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Royal College Surgeons of England, 80, 146–149.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunt, S. M., McKenna, S. P., & Williams, J. (1981). Reliability of a population survey tool for measuring perceived health problems: A study of patients with osteoarthritis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 35, 297–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316, 736–341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pedersen, S. H., Douville, L. M., & Eberlein, T. J. (1994). Accelerated surgical stay programs. A mechanism to reduce health care costs. Annals of Surgery, 219, 374–381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gough, I. R. (1994). Quality of life as an outcome variable in oncology and surgery. ANZ Journals of Surgery, 64, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lawrence, K., McWhinnie, D., Jenkinson, C., & Coulter, A. (1997). Quality of life in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 79, 40–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J., & McKenna, S. (1986). Measuring health status. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OECD. (2004). Towards high-performing health systems. OECD Health Project. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD Publications 2. Paris: Publication Services.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Euro-Qol Group. EQ-5D references. Retrieved September 20 2006 from the Euro-Qol Organisation web-pages—Use of the EQ-5D—References.
  16. 16.
    Fielden, J. M., Cummings, J. M., Horne, J. G., Devane, P. A., Slack, A., & Gallagher, L. M. (2005). Waiting for hip arthroplasty: Economic costs and health outcomes. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 20, 990–997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jansson, K. A., Nemeth, G., Gramnath, F., Jonsson, B., & Blomqvist, P. (2005). Health-related quality of life in patients before and after surgery for a herniated lumbal disc. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 87, 959–964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sohlberg, T. K., Olsen, J. A., Ingebrigtsen, T., Hofoss, D., & Nygaard, O. P. (2005). Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. European Spine Journal, 14, 1000–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J., McKenna, S. P., Backett, E. M., & Pope, C. (1984). Subjective health assessments and the perceived outcome of minor surgery. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 28, 105–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaile, J. H., Mathers, D. M., Ramos-Remus, C., & Russell, A. S. (1999). Generic health instruments do not comprehensively capture patient perceived improvement in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. The Journal of Rheumatology, 26, 1163–1166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Derrett, S., Devlin, N., Hansen, P., & Herbison, P. (2003). Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: A prospective study of clinical priority assessment criteria in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19, 91–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kingsnorth, A. N., Bowley, D. M., & Porter, C. (2003). A prospective study of 1000 hernias: Results of the Plymouth Hernia Service. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 85, 18–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Percival, S. P., & Setty, S. S. (1992). Prospective audit comparing ambulatory day surgery with inpatient surgery for treating cataracts. Quality in Health Care, 1, 38–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keulemans, Y., Eshuis, J., de Haes, H., de Wit, L. T., & Gouma, D. J. (1998). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Day-care versus clinical observation. Annals of Surgery, 228, 734–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johansson, M., Thune, A., Nelvin, L., & Lundell, L. (2006). Randomized clinical trial of day-care versus overnight-stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The British Journal of Surgery, 93, 40–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waterman, H., Leatherbarrow, B., Slater, R., & Waterman, C. (1999). Post-operative pain, nausea and vomiting: Qualitative perspectives from telephone interviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 690–696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deusch, N., & Wu, C. L. (2003). Patient outcomes following ambulatory anaesthesia. Anesthesiology Clinics of North America, 21, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coll, A. M., Ameen, J. R. M., & Moseley, L. G. (2004). Reported pain after day surgery: A critical literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46, 53–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coll, A. M., & Ameen, J. (2006). Profiles of pain after day surgery: Patients’ experiences of three different operation types. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 178–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fetzer, S. J., Hand, M. C., Bouchard, P. A., Smith, H., & Jenkins, M. B. (2004). Evaluation of the Rhodes index of nausea and vomiting for ambulatory surgery patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47, 74–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fedorowicz, Z., Lawrence, D., & Gutierrez, P. (2006). Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005 Issue 4. No.: CD004242. DOI:  10.1002/14651858.CD004242.pub3. Retrieved August 18.
  32. 32.
    Leino-Kilpi, H., Johansson, K., Heikkinen, K., Kaljonen, A., Virtanen, H., & Salanterä, S. (2005). Patient education and health-related quality of life. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 20, 311–320.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anderson, R. T., Aaronson, N. K., & Wilkin, D. (1993). Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2, 369–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring health. A review of quality of life measurement scales, (2nd ed.). Bury St Edmunds: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208. (
  36. 36.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the EuroQoL and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2, 169–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Agt van, H., Essink-Bot, M.-L., Krabbe, P., & Bonsel, G. J. (1994). Test–retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQoL questionnaire. Social Science & Medicine, 39, 1537–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gudex, C., Dolan, P., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Quality of Life Research, 5, 521–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modelling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ohinmaa, A., & Sintonen, H. (1995). Quality of life of the Finnish population as measured by the EuroQoL. In X. Badia, M. Herdman, & A. Segura (Eds.), EuroQol (1995). Barcelona plenary meeting 3–6 October. Discussion Papers, Institut Universitari de Salut Püblica de Catalunya, pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ohinmaa, A., & Sintonen, H. (1998). Inconsistencies and modelling of the Finnish EuroQoL (EQ-5D) preference values. In W. Greiner, J.-M. Schulenburg, & J. Piercy (Eds.), (1999). EuroQoL plenary meeting 1–2 October. Discussion Papers, Centre of Health Economics and Health Systems Research, University of Hannover, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hurst, N. P., Jobanputra, P., Hunter, M., Lambert, M., Lochhead, A., & Brown, H. (1994). Validity of EUROQOL—a generic health status instrument in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 655–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Essink-Bot, M. L., Krabbe, P. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (1997). An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Medical Care, 35, 522–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Suhonen, R. (2002). Individualised care from the surgical patient’s point of view. Developing and testing a model. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis D 523. Turku: Painosalama Oy.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. (2002). Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October (2000). Nursing Ethics, 9, 105–109.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hakim, Z., & Pathak, D. S. (1999). Modelling the EuroQoL data: A comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Economics, 8, 103–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Christenson, R. (1996). Analysis of variance, design and regression. Applied statistical methods. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Andersson-Molina, H., Karlsson, H., & Rockborn, P. (2002). Arthroscopic partial and total meniscectomy: A long-term follow-up study with matched controls. Arthroscopy, 18, 183–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morrissey, M. C., Milligan, P., & Goodwin, P. C. (2006). Evaluating treatment effectiveness: benchmarks for rehabilitation after partial meniscectomy knee arthroscopy. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85, 490–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Szende, A., & Williams, A. (2004). Measuring self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D. Hungary: SpringMed Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ko, Y., & Coons, S. J. (2006). Self-reported chronic conditions and EQ-5D index scores in the US adult population. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 22, 2065–2071.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Badia, X., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Social Science & Medicine, 49, 943–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    WHO. (2002). The European Health Report. WHO Regional Publications, European Series 97. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Saarni, S. I., Härkänen, T., Sintonen, H., Suvisaari, J., Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., et al. (2006). The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: A general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1403–1414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    BJD Strategic Plan. (2007). The Bone and joint decade, Strategic plan 2006–2010 and beyond. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from
  58. 58.
    Saleh, K. J., Radosevich, D. M., Kassim, R. A., Moussa, M., Dykes, D., Bottolfson, H., et al. (2002). Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 20, 1146–1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania, K., Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., et al. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1571–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zanchetta, C., & Bernstein, M. (2004). The nursing role in patient education regarding outpatient neurosurgical procedures. Axone, 25(4), 18–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riitta Suhonen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Heli Virtanen
    • 2
  • Katja Heikkinen
    • 2
  • Kirsi Johansson
    • 3
  • Anne Kaljonen
    • 2
  • Tiina Leppänen
    • 4
  • Sanna Salanterä
    • 2
  • Helena Leino-Kilpi
    • 2
  1. 1.Health Care District of ForssaForssaFinland
  2. 2.Department of Nursing ScienceUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of Nursing Science, Finnish Postgraduate School in Nursing ScienceUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Turku University HospitalTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations