Cited by 27Nausea and vomiting managementEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The Swedish Web Version of the Quality of Recovery Scale Adapted for Use in a Mobile App: Prospective Psychometric Evaluation Study

Open access
Nilsson, Ulrica, Dahlberg, Karuna, Jaensson, Maria·2017·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 40-item Quality of Recovery (QoR-40) questionnaire is well validated for measuring self-assessed postoperative recovery. The Swedish version of the 40-item Quality of Recovery (QoR-40) has been developed into a Web-based questionnaire, the Swedish Web version of the Quality of Recovery (SwQoR) questionnaire, adapted for use in a mobile app, Recovery Assessment by Phone Points, or RAPP. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical acceptability and feasibility of SwQoR. METHODS: We conducted a prospective psychometric evaluation study including 494 patients aged ≥18 years undergoing day surgery at 4 different day-surgery departments in Sweden. SwQoR was completed daily on postoperative days 1 to 14. RESULTS: All a priori hypotheses were confirmed, supporting convergent validity. There was excellent internal consistency (Cronbach alpha range .91-.93), split-half reliability (coefficient range .87-.93), and stability (ri=.99, 95% CI .96-.99; P<.001). Cohen d effect size was 1.00, with a standardized response mean of 1.2 and a percentage change from baseline of 59.1%. An exploratory factor analysis found 5 components explaining 57.8% of the total variance. We noted a floor effect only on postoperative day 14; we found no ceiling effect. CONCLUSIONS: SwQoR is valid, has excellent reliability and high responsiveness, and is clinically feasible for the systematic follow-up of patients' postoperative recovery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/mhealth.9061

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nilsson, U., Dahlberg, K., & Jaensson, M.
Affiliations
Örebro University (SE)
Corresponding author
Nilsson, Ulrica
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2017-12-11
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
e188
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771647963
Cited by
27
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 10
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
QoR-40, postoperative recovery, outpatient surgery, mobile application, psychometric validation, convergent validity, reliability statistics, responsiveness, floor effect, patient-reported outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review