Literature DB >> 9584554

The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults.

J E Ware1, J P Kemp, D A Buchner, A E Singer, K B Nolop, T F Goss.   

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare the validity of asthma-specific and generic health outcome measures in relation to changes in the severity of asthma and to treatment. Adult patients (n = 142) participating in a randomized placebo-controlled trial at six clinics were assessed at baseline, prior to the withdrawal (placebo) or continuation of treatment with Vanceril and again after 8 weeks. The criterion measures of change in severity included pulmonary function expressed as the percent predicted FEV1, five physician-assessed asthma severity measures (cough, chest tightness, wheezing, shortness of breath and overall condition) and two patient-assessed severity measures (night-time symptoms and overall symptoms). The 8 week change scores were estimated for all generic and specific measures and the results were compared across groups of patients who did and did not change in terms of clinical criteria of disease severity and across treatment groups. The responsiveness of each generic and specific measure was estimated independently using the relative validity (RV) methodology, which compares F-ratios for the mean change scores across measures in analyses of the same comparison groups. RV coefficients estimate how much worse each measure discriminated between comparison groups, relative to the best measure (RV = 1.0). Four standardized asthma-specific measures and a total scale score (based on the Marks questionnaire), an individualized asthma-specific scale measuring limitations in activities most important to each patient (based on the Juniper method) and two newly-developed scales measuring physical and psychosocial symptoms were used as outcome measures, generic health outcome measures included eight functional health and well-being scales as well as the physical and mental health summary scales from the SF-36 health survey. A standardized asthma-specific scale was most valid in discriminating between groups of patients who did and did not change according to all of the clinical criterion variables studied and in discriminating between treated and untreated groups. Different scales performed best, depending on the clinical criterion. The asthma-specific Marks breathlessness scale was significant in all nine comparisons (RV = 0.62-1.0) and was most valid in discriminating between groups in six of nine tests. The overall scale also performed well in all comparisons (RV = 0.58-1.0). The newly-developed physical symptoms scale was significant in discriminating between groups in eight out of nine tests (RV = 0.52-1.0) and was most valid in three of the nine, including the treatment comparison. The psychosocial impact scale discriminated significantly in eight of the nine comparisons (RV = 0.16-0.38), but was less valid than other specific measures. The asthma-specific individualized activities scale discriminated significantly in seven of the nine tests, but performed less well than the other specific measures (RV = 0.21-0.35) and was not significant in the treatment comparison. One or more SF-36 scales discriminated significantly between groups in all nine comparisons. Two of those scales (physical functioning and role-physical) were consistently more valid than the others (RV = 0.17 and 0.58, respectively) and were the only two generic scales that discriminated between groups of patients defined in terms of changes in FEV1 (RV = 0.26-0.58). The SF-36 physical summary scale discriminated significantly between groups in all nine comparisons (RV = 0.19-0.61) and was the most valid generic measure in the treatment comparison (RV = 0.55). The SF-36 mental summary scale was significant only for the two patient-assessed changes in disease severity (RV = 0.31 and 0.32) and for physician-assessed overall severity (RV = 0.12). A comprehensive battery of generic and specific measures is likely to be most useful in understanding the impact of changes in disease severity on the functional health and well-being of adults with asthma, a

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9584554     DOI: 10.1023/a:1024946316424

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


  26 in total

1.  Experimental evaluation of rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: short-term effects on exercise endurance and health status.

Authors:  M T Toshima; R M Kaplan; A L Ries
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.267

2.  Quality of life in asthma. I. Internal consistency and validity of the SF-36 questionnaire.

Authors:  J Bousquet; J Knani; H Dhivert; A Richard; A Chicoye; J E Ware; F B Michel
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Usefulness of the SF-36 Health Survey in measuring health outcomes in the depressed elderly.

Authors:  K M Beusterien; B Steinwald; J E Ware
Journal:  J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.680

4.  Relationships between general health measured with the sickness impact profile and respiratory symptoms, physiological measures, and mood in patients with chronic airflow limitation.

Authors:  P W Jones; C M Baveystock; P Littlejohns
Journal:  Am Rev Respir Dis       Date:  1989-12

5.  Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a multicenter trial.

Authors:  C Bombardier; J Ware; I J Russell; M Larson; A Chalmers; J L Read
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 4.965

6.  The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life.

Authors:  S H Croog; S Levine; M A Testa; B Brown; C J Bulpitt; C D Jenkins; G L Klerman; G H Williams
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-06-26       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Comparison of disease-specific and a generic quality of life measure in patients with bronchial asthma.

Authors:  K Thomas; J Ruby; J V Peter; A M Cherian
Journal:  Natl Med J India       Date:  1995 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 0.537

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

9.  Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials.

Authors:  M P Rutten-van Mölken; C H Bakker; E K van Doorslaer; S van der Linden
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Fluticasone propionate improves quality of life in patients with asthma requiring oral corticosteroids.

Authors:  L J Okamoto; M Noonan; B P DeBoisblanc; D J Kellerman
Journal:  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 6.347

View more
  28 in total

1.  A new tool for monitoring asthma outcomes: the ITG Asthma Short Form.

Authors:  M S Bayliss; D M Espindle; D Buchner; M S Blaiss; J E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Wheeze not current asthma affects quality of life in young adults with asthma.

Authors:  M Matheson; J Raven; R K Woods; F Thien; E H Walters; M Abramson
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  The influence of chronic respiratory conditions on health status and work disability.

Authors:  Mark D Eisner; Edward H Yelin; Laura Trupin; Paul D Blanc
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Health-related quality of life in asthma: a comparison between the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  Carlos Sanjuás; Jordi Alonso; Luis Prieto; Montse Ferrer; Joan M Broquetas; Josep M Antó
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  Inhaled fluticasone propionate. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma.

Authors:  H M Lamb; C R Culy; D Faulds
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Patients' and carers' preferences in two models of care for acute exacerbations of COPD: results of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  J C Ojoo; T Moon; S McGlone; K Martin; E D Gardiner; M A Greenstone; A H Morice
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 9.139

9.  Assessing the validity of the RAND negative impact of asthma on quality of life short forms.

Authors:  Cathy D Sherbourne; Brian D Stucky; Maria Orlando Edelen; Nicole K Eberhart; Eric Kleerup; Marielena Lara
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 10.793

10.  Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs).

Authors:  Billingsley Kaambwa; Gang Chen; Julie Ratcliffe; Angelo Iezzi; Aimee Maxwell; Jeff Richardson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.