OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare quality of life in two clinical conditions treated with immunosuppressants: cadaveric liver transplant recipients and multiple sclerosis patients. We also assessed the clinical significance of these results regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, the SF-36 Health Survey was used to evaluate 62 patients with these chronic conditions (31 in each group) who were matched for gender. An analysis of covariance was performed to control for the influence of time from multiple sclerosis diagnosis and liver transplantation surgery until assessment. Student t test of covariate-adjusted mean values was used as the statistical test and Cohen's d effect size index, to assess the magnitude of intergroup differences and assess clinical significance. RESULTS: Significantly worse scores were observed among the neurological patients compared with transplant recipients regarding role-physical (P = .038), general health (P = .003), vitality (P = .034), and physical functioning (P = .049), with medium effect sizes (Cohen's ds from -0.511 to -0.785). Against normative values, liver transplant recipients displayed relevant differences in all SF-36 subscales (Cohen's ds from -0.569 to -0.974) except for mental health (small effect size). Likewise, multiple sclerosis patients showed much greater differences versus the general population (Cohen's ds from -0.846 to -1.760). CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplant recipients showed better quality of life than multiple sclerosis patients (medium effect sizes) in physical quality-of-life dimensions. Interestingly, despite having controlled for time from diagnosis/transplantation, both medical conditions showed clinically significant impairments (large and medium effect sizes) in physical and psychosocial quality-of-life domains. We concluded that transplant recipients belong to a population that still requires special health care because, even after having undergone their treatment of choice, they do not achieve normal levels of biopsychosocial functioning.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare quality of life in two clinical conditions treated with immunosuppressants: cadaveric liver transplant recipients and multiple sclerosispatients. We also assessed the clinical significance of these results regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, the SF-36 Health Survey was used to evaluate 62 patients with these chronic conditions (31 in each group) who were matched for gender. An analysis of covariance was performed to control for the influence of time from multiple sclerosis diagnosis and liver transplantation surgery until assessment. Student t test of covariate-adjusted mean values was used as the statistical test and Cohen's d effect size index, to assess the magnitude of intergroup differences and assess clinical significance. RESULTS: Significantly worse scores were observed among the neurological patients compared with transplant recipients regarding role-physical (P = .038), general health (P = .003), vitality (P = .034), and physical functioning (P = .049), with medium effect sizes (Cohen's ds from -0.511 to -0.785). Against normative values, liver transplant recipients displayed relevant differences in all SF-36 subscales (Cohen's ds from -0.569 to -0.974) except for mental health (small effect size). Likewise, multiple sclerosispatients showed much greater differences versus the general population (Cohen's ds from -0.846 to -1.760). CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplant recipients showed better quality of life than multiple sclerosispatients (medium effect sizes) in physical quality-of-life dimensions. Interestingly, despite having controlled for time from diagnosis/transplantation, both medical conditions showed clinically significant impairments (large and medium effect sizes) in physical and psychosocial quality-of-life domains. We concluded that transplant recipients belong to a population that still requires special health care because, even after having undergone their treatment of choice, they do not achieve normal levels of biopsychosocial functioning.
Authors: M Ángeles Pérez-San-Gregorio; Agustín Martín-Rodríguez; Mercedes Borda-Mas; M Luisa Avargues-Navarro; José Pérez-Bernal; M Ángel Gómez-Bravo Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2017-01-20