| Literature DB >> 35626348 |
Granata Francesca1, Annamaria Nicolli2, Alessia Colaiocco3, Elena Di Pierro1, Giovanna Graziadei1.
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) describes "health" as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Therefore, a biopsychosocial approach should be considered as an integral part of patients' management. In this review, we summarize the available data starting from 1986 on the biological, psychological, and social aspects of porphyrias in order to provide a useful tool for clinicians about the missing knowledge within this field. Porphyrias are a group of rare metabolic disorders affecting the heme biosynthetic pathway and can be categorized into hepatic and erythropoietic. Here, a total of 20 articles reporting the psychological and the quality of life (QoL) data of porphyria patients affected by acute hepatic porphyrias (AHPs), Porphyria Cutanea Tarda (PCT), and Erythropoietic Protoporphyria (EPP) were analyzed. These 13 articles include reported quantitative methods using questionnaires, while the reaming articles employed qualitative descriptive approaches through direct interviews with patients by psychology professionals. We conclude that the use of questionnaires limits the complete description of all areas of a patient's life compared to a direct interview with specialists. However, only a combined use of these methods could be the best approach for the correct disorder management.Entities:
Keywords: QoL; biopsychosocial approach; pain; porphyrias; psychological aspect; stigma
Year: 2022 PMID: 35626348 PMCID: PMC9140101 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051193
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1The key characteristics of the biopsychosocial approach with three different aspects during patient care: the biological component of the disease as symptoms, the psychological impact of the disease, and the patient’s social context. Every component in a chronic disorder can affect the patient’s health.
The sum-up of literature of AHPs: author; methodology; age; number of screened patients; number of the item; significative score; the maximum score. NR = not reported.
| Authors | Assessment Method | Age (Years) | Patients (n) | Item (n) | Score | Score Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative methods by using questionnaires | ||||||
| Millward LM, et al., 2001 | Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) | >18 | 81 | 20 item | Health Perception | 100 |
| EuroQoL Questionnaire (EuroQoL) | NR | M 70–79 yrs = 0.10 | 1 | |||
| Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) | 14 item | Anxiety 7.1 ± 4.9 | 21 | |||
| Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (IPQ) | NR | NR | NR | |||
| Millward LM, et al., 2005 | Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) | >18 | 90 | 21 item | 10.3 ± 9.4 | 63 |
| Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) | 21 item | 8.5 ± 8.5 | 63 | |||
| State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) | 20 item | 80 | ||||
| Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) | 14 item | NR | 21 | |||
| General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) | 12 item | 2.21 ± 3.42 | 1 | |||
| Jiménez-Monreal AM, et al., 2015 | Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D) | >18 | 32 | 5 domains | VAS 61.60 | 100 |
| Activities of Daily Living (Katz-ADL and Barthal Index) | 10 item | 81.5% independent | 100 | |||
| Yang J, et al., 2018 | SF-36 Health Survey (Chinese version 1.0) | mean 29 | 27 | 36 item | 85.74 | 100 |
| Event Scale-Revised Questionnaire | 22 item | 36.7 ± 11.8 | > 26 | |||
| Bronisch O, et al., 2019 | Porphyria-oriented Quality of Life Questionnaire | >18 | 62 | 9 item | 5 | 10 |
| Gouya L, et al., 2020 | EuroQoL 5–Dimensions Questionnaire 5–Levels | ≥18 | 112 | 5 item | 0.78 | 1 |
| Qualitative descriptive approaches | ||||||
| Wikberg A, et al., 2000 | Qualitative approach (interwiew) | mean 55 | 5 | 20 ± 45 min | NR | NR |
| Naik H, et al., 2016 | Focus group with interactive discussion | >18 | 16 | 1.5–2 h interview | No score | NR |
| Simon A, et al., 2018 | Qualitative one-on-one interviews | mean 40 | 19 | 2 h interview | No score | NR |
| Gill L, et al., 2021 | Online survey | ≥18 | 38 | NR | No score | NR |
| Telephone interview | 10 on 38 were eligible | 1 h interview | ||||
Figure 2AHP symptoms are divided into groups of onset: (R) recurrent attack, (S) symptomatic, and (A) asymptomatic patients. The green triangle represents the patients’ quality of life, which increases at the apex. The red one represents the sensitivity to triggering factors that increase at the top of the pyramid.
Figure 3PCT symptoms are divided into three groups of onset: (R) remission, (L) latent, and (A) asymptomatic. The triangle represents the patients’ psychological distress, which increases at the apex. The base of the pyramid represents the major involvement of psychological distress.
The sum-up of the literature of AHPs: author of publications; methodology approach used for the psychological or QoL assessment; age; number of screened patients; number of the item; field; significative score; the maximum score. NR = not reported.
| Authors | Assessment Method | Age (Years) | Patients (n) | Item (n) | Score | Score Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative methods by using questionnaires | ||||||
| Jong CT, et al., 2008 | Dermatology Life Questionnaire Index (DLQI) | Mean 57 | 12 | 10 item | >10 | 30 |
| Andersen J, et al., 2016 | Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) | 25–78 | 263 | 8 item | A group 39.6 (35.8–43.4) | Between group |
| Self-reported Health Complaints (SHC) | 29 item | A group 20.5 (16.7–24.2) | ||||
| INTRUSION: Impact of Events Scale (IES) | 7/15 item | A group 11.7 (9.1–14.3) | ||||
| AVOIDANCE: Impact of Events Scale (IES) | 8/15 item | A group 12.1 (9.5–14.7) | ||||
| Andersen J, | Short Form-12 Health Survey vs. 2 (SF-12) | 24–79 | 12 | 12 item | PCS mean 48 | Mean 50 |
| Qualitative descriptive approaches | ||||||
| Andersen J, et al., 2015 | Qualitative approach (interactive discussion) | 31–77 | 21 | 1.5 h of interview | Higher impact of disease | NR |
The sum-up of the literature of AHPs: author of publications; methodology approach used for the psychological or QoL assessment; age; number of screened patients; number of the item; field; significative score; the maximum score. NR = not reported.
| Authors | Assessment Method | Age (Years) | Patients (n) | Item (n) | Score | Score Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative methods by using questionnaires | ||||||
| Langendonk JG, et al., 2015 | EPP disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (EPPQoL) | >18 | 167 | 12-item | 31% | 100% |
| Biolcati G, et al., 2015 | EPP—specific Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire by Clinuvel | >18 | 173 | 18/16-item | 4 | 10 |
| Naik H, et al., 2019 Apr. | PROMIS | >18 | 193 | NR | Higher for pain | NR |
| HADS | 103 | NR | Border line | NR | ||
| IPQR | 104 | NR | Higher | >20 | ||
| XLP/EPP-specific tools | 107 | 7 day recall | Higher | 100 | ||
| Barman-Aksözen J, et al., 2020 | EPP-QoL Questionnaire | >18 | 35 | 12 item | 49.10% | 100% |
| Qualitative descriptive approaches | ||||||
| Rufener AE. 1989 | EPP Questionnaire + Structurated interview | >18 | 10 | 25-item | NR | NR |
| Structurated interview | 7–11 | 12 | 3–6 h of interview | |||
| Naik H, et al., 2019 Jan. | Qualitative approach (focus group with interactive discussion) | 10-nov | 6 | 17 open | NR | NR |
| 24–25 | 4 | |||||
| Parents | 14 | |||||