Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2015

Quality of life and patient preferences: identification of subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients

Auteurs: Rosalba Rosato, Silvia Testa, Alessandra Oggero, Giorgia Molinengo, Antonio Bertolotto

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to estimate preferences related to quality of life attributes in people with multiple sclerosis, by keeping heterogeneity of patient preference in mind, using the latent class approach.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment survey was developed using the following attributes: activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, pain/fatigue, anxiety/depression and attention/concentration. Choice sets were presented as pairs of hypothetical health status, based upon a fractional factorial design.

Results

The latent class logit model estimated on 152 patients identified three subpopulations, which, respectively, attached more importance to: (1) the physical dimension; (2) pain/fatigue and anxiety/depression; and (3) instrumental activities of daily living impairments, anxiety/depression and attention/concentration. A posterior analysis suggests that the latent class membership may be related to an individual’s age to some extent, or to diagnosis and treatment, while apart from energy dimension, no significant difference exists between latent groups, with regard to Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 scales.

Conclusions

A quality of life preference-based utility measure for people with multiple sclerosis was developed. These utility values allow identification of a hierarchic priority among different aspects of quality of life and may allow physicians to develop a care programme tailored to patient needs.
vorige artikel Health-related quality of life of Asian patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Singapore
volgende artikel Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms in growth factor genes and quality of life in men with prostate cancer and the general population
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Trask, P. C., Hsu, M. A., & McQuellon, R. (2009). Other paradigms: Health-related quality of life as a measure in cancer treatment: its importance and relevance. Cancer Journal, 15(5), 435–440.CrossRef
3.
Miller, D. K. R. (2008). Health-related quality of life assessment in multiple sclerosis. Reviews in Neurological Diseases, 5(2), 56–64.PubMed
4.
Montazeri, A. (2009). Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: An overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 102.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
Miller, D. M., & Allen, R. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 10(5), 397–406.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Opara, J. A., Jaracz, K., & Brola, W. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medicine and Life, 3(4), 352–358.PubMedCentralPubMed
7.
Camfield, L., & Skevington, S. M. (2008). On subjective well-being and quality of life. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(6), 764–775.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Mayo, N. E., Hum, S., & Kuspinar, A. (2012). Methods and measures: What’s new for MS? Mult Scler (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 19(6), 709–713.CrossRef
10.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
11.
Ryan, M., Major, K., & Skatun, D. (2005). Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 11(4), 328–338.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Sung, L., Alibhai, S. M., Ethier, M. C., Teuffel, O., Cheng, S., Fisman, D., et al. (2012). Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 627–634.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2010). Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Social Science and Medicine, 70(12), 1957–1965.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Ryan, M., Bate, A., Eastmond, C. J., & Ludbrook, A. (2001). Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality Health Care, 10(Suppl 1), i55–i60.CrossRef
16.
Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.PubMed
17.
Ryan, M., Netten, A., Skatun, D., & Smith, P. (2006). Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—An application to social care for older people. Journal of Health Economics, 25(5), 927–944.PubMedCrossRef
18.
The EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQoL-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef
19.
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: Relative weights of the five dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1005–1012.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kuspinar, A., & Mayo, N. E. (2013). Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Miller, A., & Dishon, S. (2006). Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of disability, gender and employment status. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 259–271.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Buchanan, R. J., Johnson, O., Zuniga, M. A., Carrillo-Zuniga, G., & Chakravorty, B. J. (2012). Health-related quality of life among Latinos with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 11(4), 240–257.CrossRef
23.
Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health, 14(4), 403–413.PubMedCrossRef
24.
McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3, 303–328.CrossRef
25.
Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.
26.
Hole, A. R. (2008). Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. Journal of Health Economics, 27(4), 1078–1094.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Shingler, S. L., Swinburn, P., Ali, S., Perard, R., & Lloyd, A. J. (2013). A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Health Economics, 16(8), 1036–1042.
28.
Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 187–206.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33(11), 1444–1452.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Benedict, R. H., Wahlig, E., Bakshi, R., Fishman, I., Munschauer, F., Zivadinov, R., et al. (2005). Predicting quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Accounting for physical disability, fatigue, cognition, mood disorder, personality, and behavior change. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 231(1–2), 29–34.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Tarrants, M., Oleen-Burkey, M., Castelli-Haley, J., & Lage, M. J. (2011). The impact of comorbid depression on adherence to therapy for multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis International, 2011, 271321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
Amato, M. P., Ponziani, G., Rossi, F., Liedl, C. L., Stefanile, C., & Rossi, L. (2001). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of depression, fatigue and disability. Multiple Sclerosis, 7(5), 340–344.PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Prakash, R. S., Snook, E. M., Lewis, J. M., Motl, R. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Cognitive impairments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Multiple Sclerosis, 14(9), 1250–1261.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Cella, D. F., Dineen, K., Arnason, B., et al. (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis (FAMS) quality of life instrument. Neurology, 47, 129–139.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Fitzpatrick, R., et al. (2001). The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain, 124, 962–973.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722.
38.
Orme, B. (1998). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. In S. Software (Ed.), Sawtooth software: Research paper series.
39.
Daly, A. J., & Hess, S. (2010). October). In European transport conference, Glasgow: Simple approaches for random utility modelling with panel data.
40.
Greene, W. H. (2007). NLOGIT version 4.0: Reference guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software.
41.
Institute, S. A. S. (1990). The SAS system for windows. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.
42.
Aspinall, P. A., Johnson, Z. K., Azuara-Blanco, A., Montarzino, A., Brice, R., & Vickers, A. (2008). Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 49(5), 1907–1915.CrossRef
43.
Osoba, D., Hsu, M. A., Copley-Merriman, C., Coombs, J., Johnson, F. R., Hauber, B., et al. (2006). Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) domains during treatment. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 273–283.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., & Revicki, D. A. (1993). Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 467–475.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Tsevat, J. (2000). What do utilities measure? Medical Care, 38(Suppl 9), II160–164.PubMed
46.
Jones, K. H., Ford, D. V., Jones, P. A., John, A., Middleton, R. M., Lockhart-Jones, H., et al. (2013). How people with multiple sclerosis rate their quality of life: An EQ-5D survey via the UK MS register. PLoS One, 8(6), e65640.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
47.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271.CrossRef
48.
Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 165–178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49.
Revicki, D. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1993). Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 477–487.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Brown, M. M., Brown, G. C., Sharma, S., & Shah, G. (1999). Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 128(3), 324–330.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Sayao, A. L., Bueno, A. M., Devonshire, V., & Tremlett, H. (2011). The psychosocial and cognitive impact of longstanding ‘benign’ multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 17(11), 1375–1383.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Ryan, M., & Skatun, D. (2004). Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Economics, 13(4), 397–402.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Quality of life and patient preferences: identification of subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients
Auteurs
Rosalba Rosato
Silvia Testa
Alessandra Oggero
Giorgia Molinengo
Antonio Bertolotto
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0952-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2015

Reliability of the autoimmune bullous disease quality of life (ABQOL) questionnaire in the USA

  • Brief Communication

Evaluating Psychometric Properties of the Spanish-version of the Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Perceived Cognitive Function (pedsFACIT-PCF)

  • Brief Communication

Impact of combined sensory impairments on health-related quality of life

  • Brief Communication

Psychometric evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaire in assessing health-related quality of life in prostate cancer survivors: a curate’s egg

Longitudinal trajectory patterns of social support: correlates and associated mental health in an Australian national cohort of young women

Quality of life in a community sample of young cocaine and/or heroin users: the role of mental disorders