Literature DB >> 25715945

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

Rosalba Rosato1, Silvia Testa, Alessandra Oggero, Giorgia Molinengo, Antonio Bertolotto.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25715945     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-0952-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  42 in total

1.  Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions.

Authors:  Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Liv Ariane Augestad; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Knut Stavem
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice.

Authors:  Deborah M Miller; Rebecca Allen
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.081

3.  Health-related quality of life among Latinos with multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Robert J Buchanan; Owen Johnson; Miguel A Zuniga; Genny Carrillo-Zuniga; Bonnie J Chakravorty
Journal:  J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2012

Review 4.  Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  D A Revicki; R M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument.

Authors:  D F Cella; K Dineen; B Arnason; A Reder; K A Webster; G karabatsos; C Chang; S Lloyd; J Steward; D Stefoski
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 6.  Methods and measures: what's new for MS?

Authors:  Nancy E Mayo; Stanley Hum; Ayse Kuspinar
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 6.312

7.  A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  B G Vickrey; R D Hays; R Harooni; L W Myers; G W Ellison
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Other paradigms: health-related quality of life as a measure in cancer treatment: its importance and relevance.

Authors:  Peter C Trask; Ming-Ann Hsu; Richard McQuellon
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.360

10.  Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Diane Skåtun
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  9 in total

1.  A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskyte; Natalie King; Naila Dracup; Jeremy Chataway; Helen L Ford; Joachim Marti; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Preferences for Multiple Sclerosis Treatments: Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment to Examine Differences Across Subgroups of US Patients.

Authors:  Carol Mansfield; Nina Thomas; David Gebben; Maria Lucas; A Brett Hauber
Journal:  Int J MS Care       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

4.  Key Drivers and Facilitators of the Choice to Use mHealth Technology in People With Neurological Conditions: Observational Study.

Authors:  Sara Simblett; Mark Pennington; Matthew Quaife; Evangelia Theochari; Patrick Burke; Giampaolo Brichetto; Julie Devonshire; Simon Lees; Ann Little; Angie Pullen; Amanda Stoneman; Sarah Thorpe; Janice Weyer; Ashley Polhemus; Jan Novak; Erin Dawe-Lane; Daniel Morris; Magano Mutepua; Clarissa Odoi; Emma Wilson; Til Wykes
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-05-23

5.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies.

Authors:  Hiba El Masri; Treasure M McGuire; Christine Dalais; Mieke van Driel; Helen Benham; Samantha A Hollingworth
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2022-04-01

7.  Identifying priority outcomes that influence selection of disease-modifying therapies in MS.

Authors:  Gregory S Day; Alexander Rae-Grant; Melissa J Armstrong; Tamara Pringsheim; Stacey S Cofield; Ruth Ann Marrie
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2018-06

8.  PREFERENCES OF PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOR ATTRIBUTES OF INJECTABLE MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE.

Authors:  Christine Poulos; Elizabeth Kinter; Johan van Beek; Katrine Christensen; Joshua Posner
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.188

9.  Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test: Technical Development and Usability.

Authors:  Jane K Rhodes; David Schindler; Stephen M Rao; Fernando Venegas; Efrosini T Bruzik; Wendy Gabel; James R Williams; Glenn A Phillips; Colleen C Mullen; Jaime L Freiburger; Lyla Mourany; Christine Reece; Deborah M Miller; Francois Bethoux; Robert A Bermel; Lauren B Krupp; Ellen M Mowry; Jay Alberts; Richard A Rudick
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2019-05-03       Impact factor: 3.845

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.