Augustin M, Conde Montero E Validity and feasibility of the wound-QoL questionnaire on health-related quality of life in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2017; 25:(5)852-857

Blome C, Baade K, Debus ES, Price P, Augustin M. The ‘Wound-QoL’: a short questionnaire measuring quality of life in patients with chronic wounds based on three established disease-specific instruments. Wound Repair Regen. 2014; 22:(4)504-514

Guo S, DiPietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:(3)219-29

Seckam AM, Twardowska-Saucha K, Heggemann J, Süß-Burghart A, Augustin M. Clinical performance and quality of life impact of an absorbent bacteria-binding foam dressing. Br J Nurs. 2021; 30:(5)S21-S30

Topp J, Blome C, Augustin M Determining the minimal important difference for the Wound-QoL Questionnaire. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021; 15:1571-1578

Letter to the Editor

23 September 2021
Volume 30 · Issue 17

Our recent publication titled ‘Clinical performance and quality of life impact of an absorbent bacteria-binding foam dressing’ recognised the importance of the psychosocial effects of living with a wound (Seckam et al, 2021). These impairments can affect various areas of life, leading, for example to pain, social isolation and psychological consequences (Topp et al, 2021; Guo and DiPietro, 2010), thus affecting patients' wellbeing and quality of life (QoL).

It is therefore important to consider patient QoL in wound management. Interpretation of QoL scores are important, placing the patient at the centre of their treatment regimen. Subsequently, this allows them to reflect on their treatment regimen and consider future implications (Topp et al, 2021).

As noted in the article (Seckam et al, 2021), data on wound-related QoL were collected before and at the end of treatment with Cutimed® Siltec® Sorbact® via the validated Wound-QoL questionnaire developed by Blome et al (2014) and Augustin et al (2017). It was concluded that the improvement of the Wound-QoL scores from before to after the study suggested a positive impact of being treated with the study product. After our study had been published, a paper by Topp et al (2021) provided estimates of the minimal important difference (MID), defined as a change in QoL that a patient would consider meaningful, such that the patient would judge a treatment to be beneficial and worthy of repeating. This now allows us to interpret the QoL scores found in our study in light of the MID (Table 1).

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Nursing and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for nurses. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to clinical or professional articles

  • Unlimited access to the latest news, blogs and video content