Risk Acceptance in Composite Tissue Allotranplantation Reconstructive Procedures: Instrument Design and Validation

European Journal of Trauma

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 12-16

  Cunningham, Michael ^a   Majzoub, Ramsey ^b   Brouha, Pascal C R ^b,c   Laurentin Perez, Luis A ^b   Naidu, Deepak K ^b   Maldonado, Claudio ^b   Banis, Joseph C ^b   Grossi, Federico ^b   Frank, Johannes M ^d   Barker, John H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^b University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Composite tissue allotransplantation; Ethics; Instrument validation; Questionnaire; Risk versus benefit

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALLOTRANSPLANTATION; ARTICLE; COMPOSITE GRAFT; COMPOSITE TISSUE ALLOTRANSPLANTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACE MALFORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LARYNX DISORDER; LIMB DEFECT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; PLASTIC SURGERY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOFT TISSUE DEFECT; SURGICAL RISK; TISSUE TRANSPLANTATION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 12144289759     PISSN: 14390590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-004-1369-x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Lee WP, Mathes DW. Hand transplantation: pertinent data and future outlook. J Hand Surg [Am] 1999;24:906-13.
2. Edgell SE, McCabe SJ, Breidenbach WC, et al. Different reference frames can lead to different hand transplantation decisions by patients and physicians. J Hand Surg [Am] 2001;26:196-200.
3. Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. On the equivalence of collectively and individually collected responses: standard-gamble and time-tradeoff judgements of health states. Med Decis Making 1996;16:120-32.
4. Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994;272:619-26.
5. Jalukar V, Funk GF, Christensen AJ, et al. Health status following head and neck cancer treatment: patient, health-care professional, and public perspectives. Head Neck 1998;20:600-8.
6. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.
7. Cash TE, Labarge AS. Development of the appearance schemas inventory: a new cognitive body-image assessment. Cogn Ther Res 1996;20:37-50.
8. Sheier MF, Carver CJ. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol 1985;4:219-47.
9. Beck AT, Rush AJ, Shaw BF, et al. Cognitive therapy for depression. New York: Guilford, 1979.
10. Alfonso V, Allison D, Rader D. The extended satisfaction with life scale: development and psychometric properties. Soc Indic Res 1996;38:275-301.
11. Paulhus DL. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. J Pers Soc Psychol 1984;46:598-609.
12. Cronbach LJ. Essentials of psychological testing, 5th edn. New York: Harper & Row, 1990.
13. Hays WL. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.