OBJECTIVES: To compare the interviewer-administered Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB) with a self-administered form (QWB-SA) for patients with migraine, and to compare the health status of migraineurs to other medical populations. BACKGROUND: With the increasing need to document the cost-effectiveness of treatment for migraine, limitations with both the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 items and the QWB have been an impediment to research using cost-effectiveness as an outcome. Demonstrating the sensitivity of an alternative instrument which addresses these limitations would facilitate cost-effectiveness analyses on treatments for migraine. METHODS: Eighty-nine adults (87% women) known to suffer from migraine were asked to complete both the interviewer-administered QWB and the self-administered version (QWB-SA) on three occasions. The first occasion was on a day when no migraine was experienced in the previous 7 days. The second and third assessments were completed within 48 hours of the onset of a migraine. RESULTS: While both the QWB and the QWB-SA successfully distinguished migraine from nonmigraine days, more migraines were reported on the QWB-SA. Overall, both instruments showed similar patterns of patient dysfunction during a migraine attack. Each component of the QWB-SA successfully distinguished migraine from nonmigraine days, and the QWB-SA showed a linear sensitivity to pain intensity and disability during a migraine episode. Both instruments are able to detect a migraine's effect on multiple domains of quality of life. Study participants scored significantly lower on the QWB-SA during a migraine episode than several comparison medical populations. CONCLUSIONS: The QWB and the QWB-SA appear to have sensitivity to migraine severity, and the ability to quantitate an effect in multiple quality-of-life domains. Both measures can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, thus facilitating cost-effectiveness and health policy work in this important clinical area.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the interviewer-administered Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB) with a self-administered form (QWB-SA) for patients with migraine, and to compare the health status of migraineurs to other medical populations. BACKGROUND: With the increasing need to document the cost-effectiveness of treatment for migraine, limitations with both the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 items and the QWB have been an impediment to research using cost-effectiveness as an outcome. Demonstrating the sensitivity of an alternative instrument which addresses these limitations would facilitate cost-effectiveness analyses on treatments for migraine. METHODS: Eighty-nine adults (87% women) known to suffer from migraine were asked to complete both the interviewer-administered QWB and the self-administered version (QWB-SA) on three occasions. The first occasion was on a day when no migraine was experienced in the previous 7 days. The second and third assessments were completed within 48 hours of the onset of a migraine. RESULTS: While both the QWB and the QWB-SA successfully distinguished migraine from nonmigraine days, more migraines were reported on the QWB-SA. Overall, both instruments showed similar patterns of patient dysfunction during a migraine attack. Each component of the QWB-SA successfully distinguished migraine from nonmigraine days, and the QWB-SA showed a linear sensitivity to pain intensity and disability during a migraine episode. Both instruments are able to detect a migraine's effect on multiple domains of quality of life. Study participants scored significantly lower on the QWB-SA during a migraine episode than several comparison medical populations. CONCLUSIONS: The QWB and the QWB-SA appear to have sensitivity to migraine severity, and the ability to quantitate an effect in multiple quality-of-life domains. Both measures can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, thus facilitating cost-effectiveness and health policy work in this important clinical area.
Authors: Erik J Groessl; Robert M Kaplan; W Jack Rejeski; Jeffrey A Katula; Abby C King; Georita Frierson; Nancy W Glynn; Fang-Chi Hsu; Michael Walkup; Marco Pahor Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Erik J Groessl; Robert M Kaplan; W Jack Rejeski; Jeffrey A Katula; Nancy W Glynn; Abby C King; Stephen D Anton; Michael Walkup; Ching-Ju Lu; Kieran Reid; Bonnie Spring; Marco Pahor Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jeffrey M Pyne; Shanti Tripathi; Michael French; Kathryn McCollister; Richard C Rapp; Brenda M Booth Journal: Addiction Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Kathleen M Beusterien; Stacey J Ackerman; Kathryn Plante; John Glaspy; Peter Naredi; Diana Wood; Kurt Gehlsen; Sanjiv S Agarwala Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2003-01-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Karen L Saban; Kevin T Stroupe; Fred B Bryant; Domenic J Reda; Margaret M Browning; Denise M Hynes Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-09-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Susan I Woodruff; Michael R Galarneau; Cameron T McCabe; Daniel I Sack; Mary C Clouser Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 4.147