Parent-patient Discrepancies in the Quality of Life Assessment of Early-onset Scoliosis: A Comparison between 2 Questionnaires Completed on 2 Different Time Points - A Preliminary Report

Goker B., BEYDEMİR A., KINIKLI G. İ., YAVUZ Y., Ramazanov R., DEMİRKIRAN H. G., ...More

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, vol.44, no.6, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 44 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.1097/bpo.0000000000002689
  • Journal Name: Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE
  • Keywords: early-onset scoliosis, growing rod, growing spine, health-related quality of life, quality of life, scoliosis, traditional growing rod
  • Ankara University Affiliated: Yes


Background: EOSQ-24 is a parent proxy questionnaire designed to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) patients during their childhood years. EOSQ-SELF, a novel self-reported questionnaire, assesses HRQoL in older children (>8 y) and adolescents. So far, the same group of EOS patients has not been evaluated with both EOSQ-24 and EOSQ-SELF. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the same pathology was reflected in the parent and patient at different time points by comparing the answers to the common questions between EOSQ-24 and EOSQ-SELF. Methods: A group of otherwise healthy EOS patients whose parents filled out EOSQ-24 at the early phase of growth-friendly treatment was re-tested by the EOSQ-SELF questionnaire at the end of treatment. Both EOSQ-24 and EOSQ-SELF are validated in Turkish. Inclusion criteria were patients with EOS, independent ambulation, age of 8 years or older at EOSQ-SELF enrollment, literacy in Turkish, no apparent intellectual impairment, and a minimum of 24 months after graduation. The common questions between the 2 surveys with nearly identical phrasings were extracted. Common items from the 2 tests were compared with a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: Twenty-one patients (15 females, 6 males) who previously filled out EOSQ-24 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the group was 10 (5 to 16) years at EOSQ-24 participation and 18 (13 to 24) at the final analysis. Fourteen questions were found common in 10 domains. The scores were significantly different in 5 questions of 4 domains. EOSQ-SELF had significantly less favorable scores in the pain/discomfort, pulmonary function, and fatigue/energy level domains. Scores in the parental burden/relationships domain were significantly higher (P<0.05). Conclusions: The self-reported group had a general trend of worse results. Parents and caregivers may not accurately perceive the problems of EOS patients. Our findings indicate a disconnect between caregivers and the patients, as both parties underreported the other side in some domains. These findings suggest the challenges faced by EOS patients are not adequately reflected on proxy questionnaires that assess the HRQoL of children. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level I.