Why the study?
Does a coronary artery bypass critical path improve quality of life measured by SF-36 in discharged patients compared to a baseline sample?
Does a coronary artery bypass critical path improve quality of life measured by SF-36 in discharged patients compared to a baseline sample?
The SF-36 may have limited specificity for evaluating the impact of coronary artery bypass critical paths due to confounding from comorbidities and activity restrictions.
SF-36 may lack specificity for CABG critical path QoL assessment due to confounding; leaves open its validity in future cohort studies.
The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) may prove to be a useful tool to evaluate the impact of critical paths (path) on discharged patients. Its ability to measure effects of the path must first be evaluated. The purposes of this study are to evaluate the path using the SF-36, and evaluate its ability to measure path outcomes. Subjects cared for through a coronary artery bypass critical path completed the SF-36 and were compared against a similar baseline sample. The specificity to measure the path influence was inconclusive, because comorbidities and activity restrictions present misleading results in the measurement of disability in its current use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Corcoran et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: