Linking scores on the 4- and 5-item versions of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in people with traumatic brain, spinal cord, or burn injury: a National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Model System study.

BACKGROUND: The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a widely used measure of subjective well-being. Recent evidence indicates the fifth item of the scale reduces the reliability of the scale and is inappropriate for use in traumatic injury populations. The purpose of this study was to develop a linking procedure between the five-item version of the SWLS and a modified four-item version, which removes the problematic item, for use in Spinal Cord (SCI), Traumatic Brain (TBI), and Burn Injury populations. METHODS: Proration (i.e. adding the mean of the four items to their total) was identified as a potential linking solution that could be easily implemented in clinical or research settings. The validity of the proration approach was evaluated by examining mean differences, cross group classification by SWLS category, score correlations, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and visual inspection of Bland-Altman plots in a large sample of SCI, TBI, and Burn Injury survivors who were participants in the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Model Systems' National Databases. RESULTS: A total of 17,897 (SCI n = 8566, TBI n = 7941, and Burn n = 1390) participants were included in this study. SWLS scores ranged from 5 to 35, and the average score difference between directly derived and prorated scores was 0.39 points. A large majority of the sample (93%) had score differences of < 4 points (i.e. approximately 0.5 SD). The correlation between the prorated and directly derived scores was very high (r = 0.97) and the ICC value indicated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a valid scoring approach for researchers or clinicians who don't want to lose continuity with previously collected data but prefer to switch to the modified four-item version of the SWLS. Clear guidance is provided for traumatic injury researchers or clinicians on how to implement the proration scoring approach.

What is the prevalence of hypertrophic scarring following burns?

Hypertrophic scarring after burns remains a major problem and is considered to be "common". Pressure garments are commonly used as treatment even though there is little sound data that they reduce the prevalence or magnitude of the scarring. In 1999 we began a study of the efficacy of pressure garments on forearm burns. After studying 30 patients, mainly white adults, we found no hypertrophic scar in either those treated with pressure or without. This prompted us to review the literature on the prevalence of hypertrophic scarring after burns and found only four articles with a relatively small number of patients and only three geographical locations. It became clear that the prevalence of hypertrophic scarring is really unknown. We then did a retrospective study of 110 burn survivors and counted all hypertrophic scars of all sizes and locations in all races and found the prevalence hypertrophic scarring to be 67% which conflicts with the published reports and our prospective study and suggests that further research is necessary. We concluded that a worldwide, prospective survey is necessary to establish the prevalence of hypertrophic scarring after burns. In this article we are calling for and offering to organize this survey.