Abstract

Few adequately validated patient-reported outcome measures are available, which can assess recovery profiles following childbirth.We aimed to determine whether quantitative recovery (using the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 patient-reported outcome measure) was superior following vaginal delivery compared with cesarean delivery and evaluate validity, reliability, and responsiveness of this patient-reported outcome measure in the obstetrical setting in the United States.Women recruited into this single-center observational cohort study completed the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 and EuroQol 5-dimension 3L patient-reported outcome measures within 72 hours of childbirth. We assessed the validity with hypothesis testing and structural validity. In hypothesis testing, the primary outcome was Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores after vaginal vs cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were differences in Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores for vaginal delivery following induction of labor vs spontaneous labor and scheduled vs unplanned cesarean delivery, correlation with clinical parameters (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification grade, body mass index, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, antiemetic use, and neonatal intensive care unit admission), and qualitative ranking of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 items for each delivery mode. Structural validity was assessed by determining the correlation of the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores with the EuroQol 5-dimension 3L and global health visual analog scale scores. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha and inter-item correlation of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 items. Responsiveness was assessed by evaluating the change in Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores over the 72-hour postpartum period.Data from 215 women were analyzed. In hypothesis testing, the median (interquartile range) Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores were higher following vaginal delivery than cesarean delivery (86 [77-94] vs 77 [64-86], respectively; P<.001). Multivariate model demonstrated that Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores were significantly lower after cesarean delivery when adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiologists classification grade, age, body mass index, and ethnicity (R=-8.97; P<.001). Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores were similar between induction of labor and spontaneous labor, and scheduled cesarean delivery and unplanned cesarean delivery. Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 was correlated with length of hospital stay (R=-0.248; P<.001), estimated blood loss (R=-0.3429; P<.001), transfusion requirement (R=-0.140; P=.041), and antiemetic use (R=-0.280; P<.001). The highest ranked Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 items were ability to hold baby, feeling in control, and ability to look after personal hygiene. The lowest ranked items were pain and shivering. In structural validity, correlation of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 score was moderate with the global health visual analog scale (r=0.511) and EuroQol 5-dimension 3L scores (r=-0.509). In reliability, Cronbach alpha was 0.72 and more than 80% of individual items correlated. In responsiveness, Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores did not change significantly over the study period.Quantitative inpatient recovery following vaginal delivery is superior to cesarean delivery. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 appears to be a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure following these delivery modes. Further studies are needed to determine how to improve recovery domains identified in this study, to evaluate Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 in different languages and determine whether these domains impact outcomes beyond hospitalization.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100202

View details for PubMedID 33345919