We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Preference-based quality-of-life in patients with Parkinson's disease.
Neurology 2002 July 10
BACKGROUND: Preference-based instruments are a specific type of health-related quality-of-life scale designed to measure the relative value of health. Because of this property, they are the appropriate measures of quality of life for cost-effectiveness analysis. Although preference-based scales are widely used, their validity has rarely been tested in specific patient groups.
OBJECTIVES: To assess quality of life using preference-based scales in a group of patients with PD and to compare these scores with measures of clinical severity and traditional quality of life.
METHODS: Each patient was rated using the Disability and Distress Index (DDI), the Euroqol System (EQ-5D), and the Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI). Clinical severity was measured using the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and PD Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) quality-of-life instrument. Results from preference-based instruments were compared with each other and with clinical measures of disease severity.
RESULTS: One hundred subjects participated in the study, and 97 completed all preference-based instruments. Scores from all three instruments correlated well with the UPDRS and most domains of the PDQ-39. The mean scores for the DDI, HUI, and EQ-5D were 0.92 (range 0 to 1), 0.74 (range 0.19 to 1), and 0.58 (range -0.429 to 1). Differences between mean scores for the instruments were significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In the sample of patients with PD, the Disability and Distress Index, Euroqol System, and the Health Utilities Index Mark II correlate well with measures of disease severity and quality of life. However, they give strikingly different values. When applied in cost-effectiveness analysis, these discrepancies could result in substantially different cost-effectiveness ratios for PD-related interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess quality of life using preference-based scales in a group of patients with PD and to compare these scores with measures of clinical severity and traditional quality of life.
METHODS: Each patient was rated using the Disability and Distress Index (DDI), the Euroqol System (EQ-5D), and the Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI). Clinical severity was measured using the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and PD Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) quality-of-life instrument. Results from preference-based instruments were compared with each other and with clinical measures of disease severity.
RESULTS: One hundred subjects participated in the study, and 97 completed all preference-based instruments. Scores from all three instruments correlated well with the UPDRS and most domains of the PDQ-39. The mean scores for the DDI, HUI, and EQ-5D were 0.92 (range 0 to 1), 0.74 (range 0.19 to 1), and 0.58 (range -0.429 to 1). Differences between mean scores for the instruments were significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In the sample of patients with PD, the Disability and Distress Index, Euroqol System, and the Health Utilities Index Mark II correlate well with measures of disease severity and quality of life. However, they give strikingly different values. When applied in cost-effectiveness analysis, these discrepancies could result in substantially different cost-effectiveness ratios for PD-related interventions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app